Philippa Kaur

Literature reviewWe conducted a comprehensive review of relevant literature published since 1995. Studies were extracted from the China National Knowledge Infrastructure and Web of Science using the following keywords: “N (nitrogen) loss OR NO (nitric oxide) emission OR N2O (nitrous oxide) emission OR NH3 (ammonia volatilization) emission OR NO3− (nitric leaching) OR N (nitrogen) runoff AND wheat AND China”. We excluded the following types of experiment: experiments not covering the entire wheat growing season, experiments conducted in greenhouses or laboratories, experiments without zero-N control, and experiments including manure, controlled release fertilizer, or inhibitors. In total, we extracted 941 observations from 138 articles, consisting of 121 observations of NO emission, 383 of N2O emission, 185 of NH3 emission, 188 of NO3− leaching, and 64 of Nr runoff. We also extracted data on N application rates, and climate and soil variables (Fig. 1). Missing climate data were obtained from China Meteorological Data Network (https://data.cma.cn/), miss values of soil organic carbon (SOC) and total N content were obtained from the National Scientific Fertilizer Network (http://kxsf.soilbd.com/), and missing soil silt, clay, sand content, bulk density, cation exchange capacity (CEC), and pH data were obtained from the Harmonized World Soil Database (HWSD) v. 1.2 (http://www.fao.org/soils-portal/soil-survey/soilmaps-and-databases/harmonized-world-soildatabase-v12/en). Based on this dataset, the EFs of Nr loss pathways were calculated by the following equation:$$E{F}_{i}=left({E}_{treatment}{rm{-}}{E}_{control}right){rm{/}}N;applied$$
(1)
where i = 1–5, represented NO, N2O, NH3, NO3− leaching and Nr runoff, respectively. Etreatment is the loss rate of experimental treatments with applied N fertilizer, Econtrol is the loss rate of experimental control without applied N fertilizer, and N applied is the N application rate corresponding to Etreatment. The resulting data was used to develop RF models to predict EFs of the five Nr loss pathways.Fig. 1The generate framework of the Nr loss from Chinese wheat system (Nr-Wheat) 1.0 database.Full size imageRF modelsRF models outperformed empirical models in previous studies15,18,19. We employed RF models to predict the EFs of NO, N2O, NH3, NO3− leaching, and Nr runoff. Environmental factors were selected via redundancy analysis20. Redundancy analysis, a basic ordination technique for gradients analysis, produces an ordination summarizing the variation in several response variables that can be best explained by a matrix of explanatory variables based on multiple linear regression. We conducted redundancy analysis using Canoco 5 to further analyze the effects of 10 environmental factors, including 4 soil physical factors (bulk density, silt, clay, and sand content), 4 soil chemical factors (pH, SOC, CEC and total N content), and 2 weather factors (total rainfall and mean temperature during the wheat growing period) of different EFs. Ultimately, the dataset of each pathway contained an ensemble of different environmental factors (Table 1).Table 1 Environmental factors were employed to build RF model for each pathway and total explanatory rates.Full size tableWhen establishing the RF model, the first step was to select k features from a total of m (k  More

The custom code used to clean occurrence records and construct SDMs is available at (github.com/RhettRautsaw/ VenomMaps). We used the following R16 packages for data cleaning, manipulation, species distribution modeling, and Shiny app creation: tidyverse17 readxl18, data.table19, sf20, sp21,22, rgdal23, raster24, smoothr25, ape26, phytools27, argparse28, parallel16, memuse29, dismo30, rJava31, concaveman32, spThin33, usdm34, ENMeval35, kuenm36, shiny37, leaflet38, leaflet.extras39, leaflet.extras240, RColorBrewer41, ggpubr42, ggtext43, and patchwork44.Updating occurrence record taxonomyOur goal was to update and reconstruct the distributions of New World pitvipers. We used the Reptile Database45 (May 2021) as our primary source for current taxonomy which included the following genera: Agkistrodon, Atropoides, Bothriechis, Bothrocophias, Bothrops, Cerrophidion, Crotalus, Lachesis, Metlapilcoatlus, Mixcoatlus, Ophryacus, Porthidium, and Sistrurus. However, to ensure we captured all New World pitvipers records, we incorporated all members of the family Viperidae (all vipers and pitvipers) into our pipeline for updating occurrence record taxonomy (i.e., to account for errors in the recorded latitude, longitude, or if subfamily was not recorded).First, we collected global occurrence records for “Viperidae” from GBIF (downloaded 2021-08-19)46, Bison (downloaded 2021-08-19)47, HerpMapper (only New World taxa; downloaded 2021-08-19)48, Brazilian Snake Atlas49, BioWeb (downloaded 2021-07-07)50, unpublished data/databases from RMR, GJV, EPH, LRVA, MM, and CLP, and georeferenced literature records totaling 373,673 species-level records, 292,425 of which are New World pitvipers. Given the fluidity of taxonomy, records were often associated with outdated names. For example, Crotalus mitchelli pyrrhus was elevated to Crotalus pyrrhus51, but may still be recorded as the former in a given repository (e.g., GBIF). To correct taxonomy in our database, we checked records against a list of synonyms found on the Reptile Database and compared them to current taxonomy. If species and subspecies columns matched the same taxon (or no subspecies was recorded), then species IDs were not altered. If species and subspecies IDs did not match the same taxon, we updated taxonomy by minimizing the number of changes required to a given character string. We then manually checked all changes.Constructing distribution mapsNext, we collected preliminary distribution maps from the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN; downloaded 2018-11-27)52, Global Assessment of Reptile Distributions (GARD) v1.153, Heimes54, Campbell and Lamar55, and unpublished maps. We manually curated distribution maps for all New World pitvipers in QGIS using the occurrence records, previous distribution maps, and recent publications for each taxon (note that distributions for Old World Viperidae have not yet been updated). We used a digital relief map (maps-for-free.com) and The Nature Conservancy Terrestrial Ecoregions (TNG.org)56 to identify clear distribution boundaries (e.g., mountains). We then clipped the final distributions to a land boundary (GADM v3.6)57 and smoothed the distribution using the the “chaikin” method in the R package smoothr25.Occurrence-distribution overlapOur initial taxonomy check was only concerned with records for which a subspecies was recorded and had since been elevated to species status. Therefore, many records with no assigned subspecies likely remained associated with an incorrect or outdated generic and/or specific identification. Fortunately, taxonomic changes are typically associated with changes in the species’ expected distribution. For example, when Crotalus simus was resurrected from C. durissus, the distribution of C. durissus was split: the northern portion of its range in Central America now represented the resurrected species (C. simus) and the southern portion of its range remained C. durissus55. Yet, occurrence records in Central America often remain labelled as C. durissus in data repositories. Therefore, we spatially joined records with the newly reconstructed species distribution maps to determine if they overlapped with their expected distribution (Old World taxa were joined with the GARD 1.1 distributions53).Briefly, we developed a custom function (occ_cleaner.R) to perform the spatial join and update taxonomy. First, we calculated the distance for each record to the 20 nearest distributions within 50 km (full overlap resulted in a distance of 0 m). Next, we calculated the phylogenetic distance between the recorded species ID and each species with which that record overlapped using the tree from Zaher et al.58 and adding taxa based on recent clade-specific publications (bind.tip2.R; see github.com/RhettRautsaw/VenomMaps for full list of references and details). If records overlapped with their expected species, no changes were made. If records fell outside of their expected distribution, we filtered the potential overlapping and nearby species (within 50 km) to minimize phylogenetic distance. If multiple species were equally distant (i.e., share the same common ancestor), we attempted to minimize geographic distance. If multiple species remained equally distant in both phylogenetic and geographic distance, we flagged the record to be manually checked. We also flagged records if a species’ taxonomy had changed and records were additionally flagged as potentially dubious if the taxonomic change had a phylogenetic divergence greater than 5 million years. We manually checked all flagged records and returned records to their original species ID if species identity remained uncertain. We flagged these records as potentially dubious, along with records that fell outside of their expected distribution (within 50 km), and removed all flagged records for species distribution modeling. Our final cleaned database contained 344,998 global records, of which 275,087 were New World pitvipers.Species distribution modelingWe attempted to infer SDMs for the 158 species of New World pitvipers currently recognized by the Reptile Database (May 2021) and additionally modeled the three subspecies of Crotalus ravus separately based on recommendations for species status elevation by Blair et al.59 for a total of 160 species. We developed a unix-executable R script (autokuenm.R) designed to take occurrence records, distribution maps, and environmental data and prepare these data for species distribution modeling with kuenm36. We chose to use kuenm – and MaxEnt v3.4.460 – because it has been shown to have good predictive power61 and fine-tuning of this algorithm has performance comparable to more computationally intensive ensembles62,63. Additionally, MaxEnt allows for flexibility in parameter selection64 and can function entirely with presence data14.Prior to autokuenm, to account for sampling/spatial bias during SDM, we created a bias file by using the pooled New World pitviper occurrence records as representative background data65,66,67,68. Specifically, we converted occurrence records to a raster and performed two-dimensional kernel density estimation (kde2d) with the MASS package with default settings69 and rescaled the kernel density by a factor of 1000 and rounded to three decimal places. This was then used as input to factor out sampling bias by MaxEnt. We then ran autokuenm, which is designed to subset/partition the cleaned occurrence records for a given species and prepare additional files for SDM. We first defined M-areas – or areas accessible to a given species – using the World Wildlife Fund Terrestrial Ecoregions70. Biogeographic regions represent distributional limits for many species and are reasonable hypotheses for the areas accessible to a given species71,72. To do this, we created alpha hulls from the subset of occurrence records for a given species using concaveman32 with default settings. We then identified regions with at least 20% of the region covered by the alpha hull and merged these regions together to form our final M-area. All environmental layers and the bias file were cropped to this M-area which was used as the geographic extent for modeling. We then randomly selected 5% of records to function as an independent test set for final model evaluation. Next, we generated 2000 random background points across the cropped environmental layers and used ENMeval to partition occurrence records into four sets using the checkerboard2 pattern35. Note that the background points here were not used in MaxEnt. One of the four partitions was selected at random to be used as the testing set; the remaining three partitions were used for training the MaxEnt models. If the number of occurrence records in the independent test set was less than five, then we used the training partition for final model creation and used the testing partition for final model evaluation.We tested the top-contributing variables from three sets of environmental layers: (1) bioclimatic variables, (2) EarthEnv topographic variables73, and (3) a combination of these variables. To select the top-contributing variables in each set, we wrote a custom function (SelectVariables) which used a combination of MaxEnt permutation importance and Variable Inflation Factors (VIF) to remove collinearity while keeping the variables that contributed the most to the model. Compared with variable selection via principal component analysis loadings, the permutation importance and VIF methodology demonstrated significant improvement in MaxEnt model fit. First, we designed SelectVariables to run MaxEnt using dismo::maxent with default settings and then extracted the permutation importance. We removed variables if they had 0% permutation importance. Next, we calculated VIF with usdm::vif and then iteratively removed variables by selecting the variables with two highest VIF values and removing whichever variable had the lowest permutation importance. We then recalculated VIF and repeated the process until the maximum VIF value was less than 10. Finally, we recalculated permutation importance with the remaining variables using dismo::maxent with default settings and removed variables with less than 1% permutation importance to create the final variable sets. This process was done for each species independently.With the final environmental variable, testing, and training sets, we generated SDMs using kuenm. First, we created candidate calibration models with multiple combinations of regularization multipliers (0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5, 0.6, 0.7, 0.8, 0.9, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10), feature classes (l, q, h, lq, lp, lt, lh, qp, qt, qh, pt, ph, th, lqp, lqt, lqh, lpt, lph, lth, qpt, qph, qth, pth, lqpt, lqph, lqth, lpth, qpth, lqpth), and sets of environmental predictors (bioclimatic, topographic, combination) totaling 2,958 candidate models per species. We then ran each model in parallel using GNU Parallel74. Next, we evaluated the candidate models and selected the best models using statistical significance (partial ROC), prediction ability (omission rates; OR), and model complexity (AICc) with the “kuenm_ceval” function with default settings. Specifically, models were only considered if they were statistically significant and had an OR less than 5%. If no models passed the OR criteria, the models with the minimal OR were considered. Finally, any remaining models were filtered to those within 2 AICc of the top model (Supplementary Table 1). In addition to evaluating and comparing all models together, we evaluated bioclimatic-only and combination-only models separately since these two sets of environmental variables were expected to be the best performing models given the ubiquity of bioclimatic variables in species distribution modeling (Supplementary Table 1).We generated 10 bootstrap replicates for each of the “best” calibration models using the “kuenm_mod” function. We also performed jackknifing to assess variable importance and models were output in raw format. We evaluated the final models using “kuenm_feval” with default settings. To select the best model for each comparative set (i.e., all, bioclimatic-only, and combination-only sets), we filtered the final evaluation results to minimize the OR and maximize the AUC ratio (Supplementary Table 2). If multiple models remained and were considered equally competitive, we averaged these models together (Supplementary Table 3). Because we performed three different set of comparisons, there were three “best” models per species, so we again aimed to minimize the OR and maximize the AUC ratio to select a final model for each species (Supplementary Table 4). We then converted our final models into cloglog format for visualization and threshold the models using a 10th percentile training presence cutoff (Fig. S2). Both conversion and thresholding functions are provided as R functions (raw2log, raw2clog, raster_threshold in functions.R; github.com/RhettRautsaw/VenomMaps). More

Ambitious new targets are needed to conserve nature by protecting parks and species.Credit: Tang Dehong/VCG/Getty

It will take ample time and money to slow the world’s catastrophic loss of plant and animal species — and right now, both are running dangerously low. This year, nations are due to agree to an action plan to protect global biodiversity at the 15th Conference of the Parties (COP15) to the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity. But the meeting is already two years late because of the pandemic, and China, which will host the conference in Kunming, has yet to set a new date.Now, conflicts over financing are adding to the tension. Conservation groups and advocates suggest that rich nations must donate at least US$60 billion annually to help less-affluent ones to fund projects such as protecting areas where wildlife can thrive and tackling the illegal wildlife trade that is driving hundreds of species to extinction. This is much more than the $4 billion to $10 billion that they are estimated to be spending today, and well below the amount they are giving low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) to fight climate change, which reached around $50 billion in 2019 according to one estimate. Yet limited overseas development funds are spread ever thinner as donors deal with the pandemic and now the fallout from Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. This is where COP15 is meant to deliver: as well as agreeing to the action plan, called the Global Biodiversity Framework, nations will be encouraged to pledge more money.A mix of public and private money has started to trickle in. Currently, biodiversity funding on the table ahead of COP15 amounts to roughly $5.2 billion per year, according to estimates by a group of five leading conservation organizations. Most comes from six governments, including France, the United Kingdom and Japan, and the European Union. In April, the Global Environment Facility (GEF) — a multilateral fund to support international environmental agreements — announced that, over the next four years, around $1.9 billion will go to projects dedicated to biodiversity. However, it’s unclear how much of this will come from the coffers that donor countries have already pledged.Some cash for conservation is coming from private philanthropic donors — such as $2 billion committed by entrepreneur Jeff Bezos last year. And starting in 2020, a group of financial institutions (now 89 of them) promised to annually report their financing activities and investments that affect biodiversity, and to move away from those that do harm — a form of ecological accounting that could help to shrink the budget needed to protect biodiversity. Donors will need to reach much deeper into their pockets to meet the demands of LMICs, the custodians of much of the world’s biodiversity. In March, a group of LMICs, led by Gabon, asked for $100 billion per year in new funding when officials met in Geneva, Switzerland, to discuss progress on the Global Biodiversity Framework. The LMICs want the money placed in a new multilateral fund for biodiversity, separate from, but complementary to, the GEF.Aside from cash, the fund will need to find a new home and structure — and there are a few options. A proposal from Brazil, circulated at the Geneva meeting, suggests the fund be governed by a board of 24 members, with an equal number from rich and lower-income nations. The board would be responsible for funding decisions and would prioritize projects that help to achieve the biodiversity convention’s goals. The pitch generated interest among some countries, but also concerns that it’s an attempt by Brazil to divert attention from its failure over the past few years to protect the Amazon rainforest and prevent other environmental harm.Another option is the Kunming Biodiversity Fund, which China announced in October last year to help LMICs to safeguard their ecosystems. It allocated 1.5 billion yuan (US$223 million) to seed the fund and invited other countries to contribute, but so far none has. Sources knowledgeable about the fund say that donor countries are reluctant to pitch in because China is holding on too tightly to the reins and is not involving others in its deliberations. Details of how the fund will operate are scarce, but Nature has learnt that China is floating the idea of housing it at the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), based in Beijing. Set up in 2016, the AIIB has $100 billion in total capital and 105 members, including Germany, France and the United Kingdom. The AIIB has big green plans. By 2025, it wants half of all infrastructure projects it finances to focus on climate issues. With rigorous oversight and transparency, the AIIB would make a good home for the Kunming fund.As countries prepare to meet in Nairobi on 20–26 June in a last-ditch attempt to push the biodiversity framework forwards before COP15, China, as the host, must urgently provide stronger leadership on financing, including more transparency and engagement. Progress will require quick, generous contributions from donor nations — which should prioritize grants, not loans, for biodiversity projects.Holding the COP15 meeting must be a priority, too. As China tightens restrictions in the face of a COVID-19 surge, some researchers fear that delays will stretch on, stalling conservation work and leaving less time to meet biodiversity targets. China must either commit to holding the meeting this year or let it proceed elsewhere. One option being quietly discussed is moving the meeting to Canada — home of the United Nations biodiversity convention’s secretariat — and this deserves consideration. The world needs an ambitious biodiversity plan now — nature cannot wait. More

Source and operation-wise energy utilization patternField operations/seedbed preparationEnergy used in different field operations under various crop management activities was significantly affected by the rice establishment methods and was ranged from 422 to 436 MJ ha−1 (Table 1 and Fig. 1, S2). Business as usual (Sc1) with high energy intensive practices consumed the highest (4336 MJ ha−1) energy in seed bed preparation, whereas in Sc5 and Sc6 no energy was required for seed bed preparation (Fig. 1). CSAP (mean of Sc4, Sc5 and Sc6) consumed 57% less energy in crop establishment (transplanting/sowing) operations compared Sc1 (978 MJ ha−1). Irrespective of field operations, tillage consumed highest input energy in conventional management practice of RW system. This was due to repeated (5–6 passes) dry and wet tillage to prepare a seedbed for nursery raising and puddling consumed more diesel in machinery in Sc1. In addition to this, Sc1 and Sc2 required 15–20 additional manual labour for transplanting rice seedlings.Table 1 Energy (MJ ha−1) utilization pattern under different management practices in rice and wheat (mean of 3-years).Full size tableFigure 1Operation-wise input energy-use pattern (%)under different management practices in rice. Where; Sc1, business as usual-conventional tillage (CT) without residue; Sc2, CT with residue; Sc3, reduce tillage (RT) with residue + recommended dose of fertilizer (RDF); Sc4, RT/Zero tillage (ZT) with residue + RDF; Sc5, ZT with residue + RDF + GreenSeeker + Tensiometer; Sc6, Sc5 + Nutrient expert.Full size imageIn wheat, energy used under different management practices for seedbed preparations ranged from 892 to 3078 MJ ha−1 and were significantly affected by crop establishment method (Table 1). In seedbed preparation, Sc1 and Sc2 consumed highest energy (2228 MJ ha−1) followed by Sc3 (1382 MJ ha−1), whereas in Sc5 and Sc6 no energy was required for seed bed preparation. Sc3-Sc6 consumed ~ 53% less energy in seedbed preparation and in sowing compared to Sc1 (Fig. 2). Business as usual (Sc1) consumed more energy because of it required more tillage operations in seedbed preparation1,4. However, in CSAP, tillage is not required for seeded preparation and energy is used only for seed sowing.Figure 2Operation-wise input energy-use pattern (%) under different management practices in wheat. Where; Sc1, business as usual or conventional tillage (CT) without residue; Sc2, CT with residue; Sc3, reduce tillage (RT) with residue + recommended dose of fertilizer (RDF); Sc4, RT/Zero tillage (ZT) with residue + RDF; Sc5, ZT with residue + RDF + GreenSeeker + Tensiometer; Sc6, Sc5 + Nutrient expert.Full size imageOn the system basis, CSAP consumed 76% less energy in seed bed preparation compared to Sc1 (7416 MJ ha−1) (Fig. 3). The higher energy consumption in tillage could be due to fewer usages of modern agricultural machineries and higher use of human & animal power in conventional RW production (Fig. 3). These findings are in support of many other researchers they revealed that diesel consumption (15–20 L ha−1) can be reduced by minimizing numbers of tillage operations5,6. Gathala et al.9 and Laik et al.11 have also described that more tillage operations are the biggest energy consumer (~ 40% of the total energy) compared to best agronomic management practices.Figure 3Operation-wise input energy-use (%) of RW system under different management practices. Where; SFPI are seed, fertilizer, pesticides and irrigation. Sc1, business as usual-conventional tillage (CT) without residue; Sc2, CT with residue; Sc3, REDUCE tillage (RT) with residue + recommended dose of fertilizer (RDF); Sc4, RT/Zero tillage (ZT) with residue + RDF; Sc5, ZT with residue + RDF + GreenSeeker + Tensiometer; Sc6, Sc5 + Nutrient expert. Vertical bars indicate ± S.E. of mean of the observed values.Full size imageSeed, fertilizers, pesticides and irrigation (SFPI)In rice production, agronomic energy inputs (SFPI) consumed ~ 84% of the total energy inputs, of which irrigation alone consumed about 46% (mean of six scenarios’ total energy input 3,8483 MJ ha−1) (Table 1 and Fig. 1, S2). Sc1 (puddled transplanted rice; PTR) consumed 29% higher energy in irrigation compared to CSAP (direct seeded rice; DSR) (Fig. 1). This was due to more electricity consumption in lifting of irrigation water from borewell for nursery raising, puddling operations and continuous flooding of water to complete the life cycle of crops. Furthermore, inorganic fertilizers were the second most important input that accounted for ~ 36% of total energy. Chaudhary et al.4and Pathak et al.15 stated that out of the total energy, about 43% energy is required for irrigation and fertilizers in rice production. The CSAP consumed 76, 22 and 11% less energy in pesticides, irrigation and fertilizer, respectively compared to Sc1 (Fig. 1). However, the seed energy was lower in Sc1 (transplanting methods) of rice production than CSAP (DSR), since the seed rate was used lower in PTR; these results were in accordance with Chaudhary et al.4 and Yuan et al.12. Similarly, CSAP (DSR) recorded 87% more energy for weed control and inter-cultivations than Sc1 (PTR), due to use of higher amount of herbicides in DSR (Sc3–Sc6). While in PTR (Sc1 and Sc2), submergence of water minimized the weed problem, which contributed to lesser use of herbicides. Nevertheless, the energy savings in various interculture operations and weed management practices under PTR weren’t enough to compensate its more energy consumption in nursery raising, puddling for rice seedling transplantation and irrigation. Overall, Sc6, Sc5, Sc4 and Sc3 consumed 23, 20, 18 and 15% less energy in SFPI compared to Sc1 (37,212 MJ ha−1) (Fig. 1). Laik et al.11 and Nassiri et al.16 results are validated by those who reported the highest energy consumption in conventional RW production system compared to CA based RW system.Like rice, in wheat production also, agronomic energy inputs/SFPI were the major energy consumers that contributed nearly 84% energy out of the total energy (21,660 MJ ha−1) (Table 1). Among the agronomic inputs (SFPI), fertilizer (F) was the foremost energy input requiring about 70% energy (18,208 MJha−1) of the total energy. Furthermore, irrigation is the second major energy consumer that contributed around 16% of the total agronomic energy inputs (Table 1 and Fig. 2). Overall, CSAP consumed 18.2 and 17.6% lesser energy in fertilizer and irrigation respectively, compared to Sc1 (14,328 and 3928 MJ ha−1) (Fig. 2). Less fertilizer and irrigation requirement under CSAP was due to precision agronomic input management, whereas, in Sc1 more use of N fertilizer and irrigation was made it more energy intensive. However, CSAPs consumed 26% higher energy in pesticides than to Sc1 (364 MJ ha−1). Sc6, Sc5, Sc4 and Sc3 consumed 20, 17, 11 and 8% less energy under SFPI compared to Sc1 (20,090 MJ ha−1). The findings of the present study are in accordance with some researchers12. On the system basis, CSAP consumed 19% lower energy under agronomic inputs/SFPI compared to Sc1 (57,485 MJ ha−1) (Fig. 3).Crop managements, harvesting and threshingThe energy utilization pattern for rice production in different crop management operations (intercultural, weeding and inputs application) are presented in Table 1 and Fig. S2. In 3-years, CSAP consumed 23% less energy under various crop management activities compared to Sc1 (2394 MJ ha−1). Among the crop management practices, CSAP consumed 33% higher energy in weeding operation compared to Sc1 in rice production (Fig. 1). Likewise, in wheat production, Sc6 and Sc5 computed 19% less energy in crop management activities compared to Sc1 (487 MJ ha−1). Sc1, Sc2 and Sc3 consumed 15.6 MJ ha−1 higher energy in weeding operations whereas, no energy required in weeding under CSAP (mean of Sc4, Sc5 and Sc6) (Table 1). The similar energy use pattern was recorded under all scenarios for harvesting and threshing operations in both the crops (Fig. 2). In RW system, CSAP and Sc3 consumed 23 and 13% less energy in input application compared to Sc1 (2264 MJ ha−1), respectively (Fig. 3). The highest energy use in various crop management practices under Sc1 was due to more energy required for the application of fertilizers, pesticides, hand weeding and inter-culture operations compared to CSAP. Findings of current study are in accordance who also recorded that smart crop management practices required less energy compared to conventional practices4,5,12,17.Direct–indirect and renewable–non-renewable energyIn rice production, direct and non-renewable energy consumption was more than indirect and renewable energy (Table 2). Direct energy in different cultivation methods of rice was in the range of 57–63%, whereas indirect energy was 37–43% of total energy consumed. Among the direct energy sources, application of irrigation water in all scenarios of rice cultivation consumed the highest direct energy, which showed that irrigation methods in rice cultivation should be standardized with low water use for its future sustainability. The findings of past researchers highlighted that more tillage operation before planting needed around 1/3rd of the total field operational energy, and that can be saved without affecting the crop yields with the adoption of zero tillage based rice cultivation practices6,9,15,18. CSAP (mean of Sc4, Sc5 and Sc6) recorded 43 and 17% less consumption of direct energy & indirect energy in rice cultivation compared to Sc1 (19,264 and 5735 MJ ha−1), respectively. The Sc3 also recorded 20 and 17% less consumption of direct & indirect energy compared to Sc1, respectively (Table 2). The contrast effects (BAU vs CSAP and I-BAU vs CSAP) were significant for direct and indirect energy (Table S2). However, BAU versus I-BAU was not-significant for direct energy but significant for indirect energy.Table 2 Total energy input (MJ ha−1) in the form of direct, indirect, renewable and non-renewable energy for different management practices under the rice, wheat and RW system.Full size tableThe contribution of renewable energy was very low in rice cultivation methods and it highlighted that the cultivation of rice is mainly based on non-renewable sources4,5,11,15. In our study, higher percent of electricitical energy consumed for water pumping from tube-wells, could be owing to less charges of electricity in Haryana, India19,20,21. In the study`s area, electric energy consumed in crop production is generated mostly from non-renewable sources, particularly fossil fuels. Furthermore, non-renewable sources are still the main fuel in power plants. The contrast effect (BAU vs CSAP) was significant for renewable and non-renewable energy (Table S2).In wheat cultivation methods, indirect & non-renewable energy consumption was greater than the direct & renewable energy. Less renewable energy uses in wheat cultivation showed that wheat production is mainly based on non-renewable resources. CSAP recorded 52 and 19% less direct and indirect energy in wheat cultivation compared to Sc1, respectively (Table 2).In RW system, direct and indirect energy consumption varied from 24,999 to 37,452 MJ ha−1 and 26,068 to 33,087 MJ ha−1, respectively (Table 2). Business as usual required more direct energy (diesel in field operations, electricity in irrigation and labour in crop management) than indirect energy in the CT-based RW system. However, CSAP required less direct energy compared to indirect energy, which showed that less number of field operations are required under CSA-based RW production system. The contrast effect (BAU vs CSAP) were significant to direct and indirect energy (Table S2).In RW system, higher renewable & non-renewable input energy was recorded under Sc1 and Sc2 (4582 and 65,957 MJ ha−1) followed by Sc3 (4306 and 54,906 MJ ha−1) as compared to CSAP (3985 and 47,082 MJ ha−1) (Table 2). The contrast effects were significant to renewable & non-renewable energy (Table S2). Present study indicated that conventional RW production system in the IGP plains are mostly dependent on non-renewable energysources4,15,20,22. Overall, non-renewable energy through fuel, electricity for ground water, inorganic fertilizers, pesticides and farm machineries shared maximum energy inputs followed by renewable resources viz.,labour, tractor, seed, etc.11,15,18. Dependence on non-renewable energy impacted the sustainability of the RW system15. Noteworthy, renewable energy is eco-friendly as well as reliable source of energy; hence, the use of renewable energy highlighted huge benefits, counting lesser contributions to greenhouse gasses emissions and enhanced environmental quality5. The present findings highlighted that more focus should be kept to improve, renewable energy use, technical innovation and optimized investment in rice and wheat production.Energy balance sheet (input–output and net energy)The total energy used for various rice production methods varied from 32,606 to 45,685 MJ ha−1 and was significantly affected by different crop management practices (Table 3). Our study results are in track with those of other similar research studies conducted in the IGP region for RW system4,5,11. Among the different rice production methods, PTR cultivation method (Sc1) of rice noted higher energy input than the CSAP (DSR method). Sc1 (32,606 MJ ha−1) recorded 40, 35, 27 and 23% higher energy use in rice production over Sc6, Sc5, Sc4 and Sc3, respectively (Table 3). Similarly, Sc1 (32,606 MJ ha−1) recorded 35, 29, 22 and 13% higher energy use in wheat production over Sc6, Sc5, Sc4 and Sc3, respectively. The CSAP and Sc3 used 24 and 16% less energy under RW system compared to Sc1 (70,538 MJ ha−1), respectively. However, CSAP recorded higher energy output from rice, wheat and RW system compared to Sc1. Compared to Sc1, the CSAP produced 1, 14 and 6% higher grain output energy under rice, wheat and system, respectively. The minimum input and maximum output energy under Sc6 were due to gained more net energy for both the crops during the respective years (Table 3). Linear contrast effects were significant to total energy input in rice, wheat and RW production systems. However, contrast effects were not significant to energy input in rice and RW system but significant to wheat production system.Table 3 Energy (MJ ha−1) balance under different management practices in rice, wheat and RW system (mean of 3 years).Full size tableIn rice production, the energy saving under CSAP was due to less energy inputs used in electricity that was associated with less irrigation water use in cultivation4,5,11. Efficient water management practice had a positive effect on energy consumption5,11and diverse energy sources across water regimens in India1,12,16. Our study showed that the energy input in existing rice and wheat production can be further minimized with precision water management techniques and, optimization of irrigation water management based on the precision land-levelling, frequent irrigation in rice, tensiometer based irrigation and zero tillage can efficiently decrease the total energy consumption in the IGP of India2,11.On an average, fertilizer was the first and second largest source of energy consumption in rice and wheat in all scenarios (Figs. 1 and 2), respectively. Aggregate proof from the current study and other similar studies highlighted that fertilizer consumption created the major share of the total energy input in crop production10,11,12. Among different fertilizers, N-fertilizers consumed the most energy input and constituted 94% in Sc1 and 87% in CSAP of the energy from fertilizers in RW system. From several past evidences, it is crystal clear that fertilizer application is exceeded to the highest demand for crop growth & development in this region, that further encouraged low resource use efficiency (RUE) and higher environmental footprints23,24. Thus, it is necessary to use fertilizers efficiently to reduce energy use and to prevent environmental degradation. Overall, the higher energy input was allied with more tillage, labour, irrigation and higher use of N-fertilizers in Sc1 compared to CSAP. Erenstein et al.6, Gathala et al.9and Ladha et al.3 also described that more tillage for seed bed preparation, more number of irrigation, higher labour and higher fertilizer inputs are the main interventions for higher energy usage under traditional farming. The higher output energy of rice, wheat and RW system with CSAP might be due to the multiple effects of applied nutrients1, zero tillage5, residue management, improved soil health2, good water regimes5,11and improved nutrient use efficiency (NUE) relative to Sc1. The CSAP recorded greater crop yields that ultimately reflected to greater net energy, EUE, human energy profitability, EP, over conventional methods of RW system.Energy use efficiency (EUE) and productivityEnergy use efficiency is an index used to measure the amount of energy that is effectively used in different farm activities. The highest input and the lowest output energy under Sc1 resulted into the lowest EUE and energy productivity (EP). Contrarily, the lowest energy input and the highest energy output under CSAP (mean of Sc4, Sc5 and Sc6) resulted into the maximum EUE and EP in both the crops in all the study’s years (Table 3). The average energy use efficiency was 52, 53 and 54% higher under Sc6 in rice, wheat and RW system compared to Sc1 (Table 3), respectively. CSAP recorded 44% (7.57 MJ MJ−1) higher EUE compared to Sc1 (5.28 MJ MJ−1) in the RW system. Linear contrast effects were also significant to EUE in rice, wheat and RW production systems. The large gap among the two values was due to tillage, irrigation and fertilizers which highlighted that EUE can be enhanced with reduced tillage, precision use of irrigation water and nutrient. Remarkably, the values observed in the current finding fall around the range described by other researchers11 who revealed that the EUE of RW production in IGP ranged 3.94 ± 1.31 MJ MJ−1. Overall, the results of the current study showed that those existing production methods of the RW system in IGP are not too efficient. Besides, RW system is damaging to agro-ecosystems because of imbalance and excess use of inputs. Hence, efficient use of production inputs would be helpful in optimizing energy consumption in RW system in the IGP region of South Asia.Energy productivity (EP) was statistically higher in the Sc6 in rice (0.15 kg MJ−1), wheat (0.21 kg MJ−1) and RW system (0.17 kg MJ−1) than in the Sc1 (Table 3). These findings revealed that an additional ~ 27% of RW system yield was gained per unit energy input in the Sc6 compared with the other scenarios (0.20 kg MJ−1). CSAP recorded 40% higher EP compared to Sc1 (0.17 kg MJ−1) in RW system. Linear contrast effects were significant to EP in rice, wheat and RW production systems (Table S2). The EP indices can be used for assessing the crop production associated environmental effects25. About agro-ecosystem sustainability, earlier research findings have highlighted that EP indicator could be used to judge optimal land and crop management intensities11,14. This study suggests there is an enormous potential for enhancing the energy productivity and efficiency of RW system in the IGP. CSA scenarios (Sc4, Sc5 and Sc6) improved EUE and EP in rice, wheat as well as RW system, was due to lower energy input and higher energy output relative to Sc1. The findings of our research are in line with those who has described that CA-based management practices can reduce energy input and increase output4,5,11,14.Yields, farm profitability and economic efficiency (Eco-efficiency)The rice yields were not much influenced by different crop management. However, in wheat, CSAP (mean of Sc4, Sc5 and Sc6) produced 11–16% and 10–13% higher grain and biomass yield, respectively compared to BAU. The grain and biomass yield of RW system was improved by 4–8 and 6–9% under CSAP, respectively relative to Sc1 (3-years’ mean) (Fig. 4).The CSAP improved the net income of rice, wheat and RW system by 15, 21 and 23% (3-years’ mean), respectively relative to Sc1 (US$ 824 and 1009 and 1833 ha−1, respectively) (Fig. 4). Linear contrast effects were significant to the net income in rice, wheat and RW production systems (Table S2). Higher net income was associated with CSAP due to less cultivation cost in various crop production activities such as tillage, crop establishment and irrigation9. Researcher observed that escaping field operations particularly tillage puddling and manual transplanting in rice and adoption of ZTDSR minimized tillage and establishment costs by 79–85%. CSAP improved crop yields while reducing production costs resulting in greater profitability of the RW system.Figure 4Effect of management practices portfolios on net return and eco-efficiency in rice, wheat and RW system (Mean of 3 years). Where; Sc1, business as usual-conventional tillage (CT) without residue; Sc2, CT with residue; Sc3, reduce tillage (RT) with residue + recommended dose of fertilizer (RDF); Sc4, RT/Zero tillage (ZT) with residue + RDF; Sc5, ZT with residue + RDF + GreenSeeker + Tensiometer; Sc6, Sc5 + Nutrient expert. Values with different lower case (a–e) letters are significantly different between each scenarios at p  More

Author notesThese authors contributed equally: AM Carpenter, BA Graham.Authors and AffiliationsUniversity of Lethbridge, Lethbridge, AB, CanadaA. M. Carpenter, B. A. Graham & T. M. BurgBiological Sciences Department, Auburn University, Auburn, AL, USAA. M. CarpenterDenver Museum of Nature and Science, Denver, CO, USAG. M. SpellmanAuthorsA. M. CarpenterB. A. GrahamG. M. SpellmanT. M. BurgCorresponding authorCorrespondence to
A. M. Carpenter. More

Shen, S.-Z. et al. A sudden end-Permian mass extinction in South China. GSA Bull. 131(1–2), 205–223. https://doi.org/10.1130/B31909.1 (2019).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Rampino, M. R. & Caldeira, K. Major perturbation of ocean chemistry and a ‘Strangelove Ocean’ after the end-Permian mass extinction. Terra Nova 17, 554–559. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3121.2005.00648.x (2005).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Cascales-Miñana, B. & Cleal, C. The plant fossil record reflects just two great extinction events. Terra Nova 26, 195–200. https://doi.org/10.1111/ter.12086 (2014).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Fielding, C. R. et al. Age and pattern of the southern high-latitude continental end-Permian extinction constrained by multiproxy analysis. Nat. Commun. 10, 385. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-07934-z (2019).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Nowak, H., Schneebeli-Hermann, E. & Kustatscher, E. No mass extinction for land plants at the Permian–Triassic transition. Nat. Commun. 10, 384. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-07945-w (2019).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Gastaldo, R. A., Neveling, J., Geissman, J. W., Kamo, S. L. & Looy, C. V. A tale of two Tweefonteins: What physical correlation, geochronology, magnetic polarity stratigraphy, and palynology reveal about the end-Permian terrestrial extinction paradigm in South Africa. GSA Bull. 134, 691–721. https://doi.org/10.1130/B35830.1 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Xiong, C. & Wang, Q. Permian–Triassic land-plant diversity in South China: Was there a mass extinction at the Permian/Triassic boundary?. Paleobiology 37(1), 157–167 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Feng, Z. et al. From rainforest to herbland: New insights into land plant responses to the end-Permian mass extinction. Earth Sci. Rev. 204, 103153 (2020).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
McLoughlin, S. Glossopteris–insights into the architecture and relationships of an iconic Permian Gondwanan plant. J. Bot. Soc. Bengal 65, 93–106 (2011).
Google Scholar 
Rigby, J. F. The Gondwana palaeobotanical province at the end of the Palaeozoic. In 24th International Geological Congress (Montreal, 1972). Proceedings, Section 7, 324–330 (International Geological Congress, 1972).Retallack, G. J. et al. Multiple Early Triassic greenhouse crises impeded recovery from Late Permian mass extinction. Palaeogeogr. Palaeoclimatol. Palaeoecol. 308, 233–251 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Looy, C. V., Brugman, W. A., Dilcher, D. L. & Visscher, H. The delayed resurgence of equatorial forests after the Permian–Triassic ecologic crisis. PNAS 96, 13857–13862 (1999).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Gabites, H. I. Triassic paleoecology of the Lashly Formation, Transantarctic Mountains, Antarctica. M.Sc. Thesis, 1–148 (Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand, 1985).Mays, C. et al. Refined Permian–Triassic floristic timeline reveals early collapse and delayed recovery of south polar terrestrial ecosystems. GSA Bull. 132, 1489–1513. https://doi.org/10.1130/B35355.1 (2020).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Escapa, I. H. et al. Triassic floras of Antarctica: Plant diversity and distribution in high paleolatitude communities. Palaios 26, 522–544 (2011).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Retallack, G. J. & Krull, E. S. Landscape ecological shift at the Permian–Triassic boundary in Antarctica. Aust. J. Earth Sci. 46, 785–812 (1999).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Gulbranson, E. L., Cornamusini, G., Ryberg, P. E. & Corti, V. When does large woody debris influence ancient rivers? Dendrochronology applications in the Permian and Triassic, Antarctica. Palaeogeogr. Palaeoclimatol. Palaeoecol. 541, 109544. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.palaeo.2019.109544 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Sheldon, N. D. Abrupt chemical weathering increase across the Permian–Triassic boundary. Palaeogeogr. Palaeoclimatol. Palaeoecol. 231, 315–321 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
Frank, T. D. et al. Pace, magnitude, and nature of terrestrial climate change through the end-Permian extinction in southeastern Gondwana. Geology https://doi.org/10.1130/G48795.1 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Collinson, J. W., Hammer, W. R., Askin, R. A. & Elliot, D. H. Permian–Triassic boundary in the central Transantarctic Mountains, Antarctica. GSA Bull. 118, 747–763 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
Elliot, D. H., Fanning, C. M., Isbell, J. L. & Hulett, S. R. W. The Permo–Triassic Gondwana sequence, central Transantarctic Mountains, Antarctica: Zircon geochronology, provenance, and basin evolution. Geosphere 13, 155–178 (2017).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Barbolini, N., Bamford, M. K. & Rubidge, B. Radiometric dating demonstrates that Permian spore-pollen zones of Australia and South Africa are diachronous. Gondwana Res. 37, 241–251 (2016).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Sidor, C. A., Smith, R. M. H., Huttenlocker, A. K. & Peecook, B. R. New Middle Triassic tetrapods from the Upper Fremouw Formation of Antarctica and their depositional setting. J. Vertebr. Paleontol. 34, 793–801 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hancox, P. J., Neveling, J. & Rubidge, B. S. Biostratigraphy of the Cynognathus Assemblage Zone (Beaufort Group, Karoo Supergroup), South Africa. S. Afr. J. Geol. 123, 217–238. https://doi.org/10.25131/sajg.123.0016 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Askin, R. A. Permian palynomorphs from southern Victoria Land, Antarctica. Antarct. J. US. 30, 47–48 (1995).
Google Scholar 
Kyle, R. A. & Schopf, J. M. Permian and Triassic palynostratigraphy of the Victoria Group, Transantarctic Mountains. In Antarctic Geosciences (ed. Craddock, C.) 649–659 (University of Wisconsin Press, 1982).
Google Scholar 
Fritts, H. C. Tree Rings and Climate (Academic Press, 1976).
Google Scholar 
Lu, J., Zhang, P., Yang, M., Shao, L. & Hilton, J. Continental records of organic carbon isotopic composition (δ13Corg), weathering, paleoclimate and wildfire linked to the End-Permian Mass Extinction. Chem. Geol. 558, 119764 (2020).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Yang, J., Cawood, P. A., Du, Y., Feng, B. & Yan, J. Global continental weathering trends across the Early Permian glacial to postglacial transition: correlating high- and low-paleolatitude sedimentary records. Geology 42, 835–838 (2014).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Panahi, A., Young, G. M. & Rainbird, R. H. Behavior of major and trace elements (including REE) during Paleoproterozoic pedogenesis and diagenetic alteration of an Archean granite near Ville Marie, Québec, Canada. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 64, 2199–2220 (2000).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Gulbranson, E. L., Montañez, I. P. & Tabor, N. J. A proxy for humidity and floral province from paleosols. J. Geol. 119, 559–573 (2011).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Sheldon, N. D., Retallack, G. J. & Tenaka, S. Geochemical climofunctions from North American soils and application to paleosols across the eocene–oligocene boundary in Oregon. J. Geol. 110, 687–696 (2002).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Torrence, C. & Compo, G. P. A practical guide to wavelet analysis. Bul. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 79, 61–78 (1998).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Fielding, C. R. et al. Environmental change in the late Permian of Queensland, NE Australia: The warmup to the end-Permian Extinction. Palaeogeogr. Palaeoclimatol. Palaeoecol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.palaeo.2022.110936 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gulbranson, E. L. et al. Leaf habit of Late Permian Glossopteris trees from high palaeolatitude forests. J. Geol. Soc. 171, 493–507 (2014).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Ryberg, P. E. Reproductive diversity of Antarctic glossopterid seed ferns. Rev. Palaeobot. Palynol. 158, 167–179 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Mays, C. et al. Lethal microbial blooms delayed freshwater ecosystem recovery following the end-Permian extinction. Nat. Commun. 12, 5511. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-25711-3 (2021).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Decombeix, A. L., Bomfleur, B., Taylor, E. L. & Taylor, T. N. New insights into the anatomy, development, and affinities of corystosperm trees from the Triassic of Antarctica. Rev. Palaeobot. Palynol. 203, 22–34 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Cui, C. & Cao, C. Increased aridity across the Permian–Triassic transition in the mid-latitude NE Pangea. Geol. J. 56, 6162–6175. https://doi.org/10.1002/gj.4123 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Yu, Y., Chu, D., Song, H., Guo, W. & Tong, J. Latest Permian–Early Triassic paleoclimatic reconstruction by sedimentary and isotopic analyses of paleosols from the Schichuanhe section in central North China Basin. Palaeogeogr. Palaeoclimatol. Palaeoecol. 585, 110726 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Rees, P. M. Land-plant diversity and the end-Permian mass extinction. Geology 30, 827–830 (2002).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Domeier, M. & Torsvik, T. H. Plate tectonics in the late Paleozoic. Geosci. Front. 5, 303–350. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gsf.2014.01.002 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Jasper, A. et al. The burning of Gondwana: Permian fires on the southern continent–a palaeobotanical approach. Gondwana Res. 24, 148–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gr.2012.08.017 (2013).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Taylor, G. H., Liu, S. Y. & Diessel, C. F. K. The cold climate origin of inertinite-rich Gondwana coals. Int. J. Coal Geol. 11, 1–22 (1989).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Mays, C. & McLoughlin, S. End-Permian burnout: The role of Permian–Triassic wildfires in extinction, carbon cycling, and environmental change in eastern Gondwana. Palaios https://doi.org/10.2110/palo.2021.051 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Corti, V. Palynology and paleobotany of Permo–Triassic Beacon Supergroup at Allan Hills, South Victoria Land, Antarctica: Stratigraphical and paleoenvironmental change implications. Ph.D. Dissertation, 1–186 (Università di Siena, Italy, 2021).Sheldon, N. D., Chakrabarti, R., Retallack, G. J. & Smith, R. M. H. Contrasting geochemical signatures on land from the Middle to Late Permian extinction events. Sedimentology 61, 1812–1829 (2014).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Cúneo, N. R., Taylor, E. L., Taylor, T. N. & Krings, M. In situ fossil forest from the upper Fremouw Formation (Triassic) of Antarctica: Paleoenvironmental setting and paleoclimate analysis. Palaeogeogr. Palaeoclimatol. Palaeoecol. 197, 239–261 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
Vajda, V. et al. End-Permian (252 Mya) deforestation, wildfires and flooding—An ancient biotic crisis with lessons for the present. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 529, 115875 (2020).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Francis, J. E., Woolfe, K. J., Arnott, M. J. & Barrett, P. J. Permian climates of the southern margin of Pangea: Evidence from fossil wood of Antarctica. In Pangea: Global Environments and Resources (eds Embry, A. F. et al.) 275–282 (AAPG Memoir 17, 1994).
Google Scholar 
Wright, W. E., Baisan, C., Streck, M., Wright, W. W. & Szejner, P. Dendrochronology and middle Miocene petrified oak: Modern counterparts and interpretation. Palaeogeogr. Palaeoclimatol. Palaeoecol. 445, 38–49 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Luthardt, L. & Rößler, R. Fossil forest reveals sunspot activity in the early Permian. Geology 45, 279–282 (2017).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
St. George, S. & Telford, R. J. Fossil forest reveals sunspot activity in the Early Permian: COMMENT. Geology 45, 427 (2017).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Baillie, M. G. L. & Pilcher, J. R. A simple cross-dating program for tree-ring research. Tree Ring Bull. 33, 7–14 (1973).
Google Scholar 
Hollstein, E. Mitteleuropäische Eichenchronologie, Trierer Grabungen und Forschungen XI, Philip von Zabern (1980).Bunn, A. G. Statistical and visual crossdating in R using the dplR library. Dendrochronologia 28, 251–258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dendro.2009.12.001 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Buras, A. A comment on the expressed population signal. Dendrochronologia 44, 130–132 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Roesch, A. & Schmidbauer, H. WaveletComp Computational Wavelet Analysis https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=WaveletComp. R package version 1.1 (2018). 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

None of the 21 targets of the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) set for 2020 was achieved. But, by our calculations, the target to protect 10% of the global ocean area (SDG14, target 5) could become a reality this year.
Competing Interests
The authors declare no competing interests. More