Most legislation to protect wildlife currently focuses on prohibiting deliberate destruction and excessive exploitation of resources. However, that approach fails to address emerging threats such as climate change. Many species will go extinct long before emissions-reduction schemes are realized.
Competing Interests
The authors declare no competing interests. More
In many conservation projects, women are alone on all-male teams.Credit: Getty
My career in conservation spans more than 20 countries, and workplaces ranging from universities, governments and consultancies to community-based and global non-governmental organizations (NGOs). Currently, I work as the Asia-Pacific director of gender and equity at The Nature Conservancy, one of the largest global conservation NGOs: it has more than 4,000 staff members and is active in more than 80 countries. I am responsible for ensuring that all our endeavours across the Asia-Pacific to address biodiversity loss and the climate crisis are inclusive and equitable.My career has been incredibly diverse: from monitoring saltwater crocodiles (Crocodylus porosus) in northern Australia to working with women on gender-based violence in Papua New Guinea to speaking at international climate meetings. But one theme has remained a constant: gender-based discrimination, which not only holds women back, but holds the world back from addressing the crises of climate change and biodiversity loss.Discrimination is by no means an experience unique to me or just a few women. A review of 230 peer-reviewed articles1, of which I was the lead author, confirmed a sobering truth: women everywhere are excluded from decisions about conservation and natural resources, from small and remote communities in biodiversity hotspots to large conservation organizations themselves. In every country, and in almost every setting and organization, women are routinely disadvantaged in conservation just because they are women.
Collection: Fieldwork
Unconscious bias is normal and natural, and all of us have it: it is how our brains make sense of the world. But when unexamined bias or deliberate discrimination influences decision-making, perpetuates stereotypes and keeps women from reaching their potential, they create rippling negative impacts on society and the future of our planet. Whether gender stereotypes are overtly hostile (such as ‘women are too emotional to lead fieldwork’) or seemingly benign (‘women are naturally good at organizing and supporting the team’ or ‘we need a strong, decisive leader’ — that is, a man), they hold women back in their conservation careers.An uneven playing fieldConservation has historically been a male-dominated profession. Just 3–11% of wildlife rangers are women2, and only 11% of the top-publishing authors in conservation and ecology are women3. A strong masculine culture is often associated with the profession, which can intimidate women. Many women in the sector experience sexual harassment and anxiety about their personal safety — particularly when they are the only woman on a project, which is often the case.Furthermore, women usually pay a heavy price for calling out cultures that are not inclusive. From surveying conservation professionals, I found that nearly 20% of women fear reprisal when speaking out against bias4. Their fears are warranted; many are sidelined or branded as ‘difficult’ or ‘frustrating’ if they draw attention to discrimination or poor behaviour, or try to slow down the decision-making process if it is not inclusive.In my career, I have been told that I wouldn’t be considered for an exciting project because it would be too physically demanding, be unsafe for a woman to be alone in a remote setting or require too much time away from my young family. Decisions that are made on your behalf are infuriating — and can come at both a career cost and a financial cost. Conversely, I have been offered opportunities because I have a masculine, gender-neutral name, and the people in charge assumed that I was a man before they had met me. I was then met with surprise and scepticism when I turned up and they realized that ‘Robyn James’ is a woman. I have always held my own in these situations, but the constant pressure to prove I belonged was exhausting and came at a personal cost5,6.My experiences are those of someone who holds deep and unearned privilege: I am a white cis woman with sufficient income to support my family, and I can speak and write English (the primary language of science) well. These factors increase my opportunities to contribute. Many conservationists and scientists who are women do not have those privileges. Some are also discriminated against owing to racism in a world that favours whiteness, and those who live in places where the cost of education and health care is high, wages are low and basic services such as power and Internet are intermittent face further disadvantages.As an ally and sponsor for women in conservation and science, I am determined to leverage my position to change this. I’m focused on breaking down walls and smashing the glass ceiling for women across the sector.Here are a few ways I am using the power I have to make conservation and science more inclusive. Hopefully these ideas will help others to share their solutions or to be better allies to women.Women are needed as leadersWomen who are conservation and environmental-science graduate students or are at early career stages often tell me that they don’t often see women at senior levels7, and that leaders don’t make them feel included. I am part of an informal group of women in senior positions in conservation, representing several organizations, who attend events for undergraduates and early-career professionals. We aim to share our journeys and to be visible to women who are just starting out. We model diverse leadership styles to show alternatives to masculine ‘command and control’ leadership, which these women might have more often experienced.Women routinely undersell themselves and do not apply for promotions, so we actively encourage our younger peers to apply for positions and support them by providing feedback on CVs and sharing interview techniques, for example. I am also part of a formal mentoring and sponsorship programme to support women — especially those in the lower-income countries — to navigate and excel in systems that are not designed with their success in mind. We work through issues to do with self-esteem and confidence: some women have understandably taken biased attitudes on board, and do not realize that they are worthy of progressing in their careers. I work with them to help them to understand how incredible they really are.
Conservation scientist Robyn James works with women on the Solomon Islands.Credit: Madlyn Ero
At The Nature Conservancy, we have developed a network of more than 50 women who can share their experiences and challenges in a safe supportive environment. We ensure that we work with women to address practical challenges they encounter. These efforts range from dedicated sessions on how to address gender bias in their teams and workplaces, to working through examples of how to make progress on gender equity in the field of conservation, where speaking up might clash with cultural norms or put women at risk of retaliation.Making work more inclusiveMy research with The Nature Conservancy on gender and conservation science publishing has shown that women are vastly under-represented8: less than 2% of authors were women in lower-income countries. The organization subsequently enlisted an experienced, well-published conservation scientist to work with women across the Asia-Pacific and support them in the publishing process, from developing research ideas to submitting final publications. I ensure my own published research includes authors with diverse perspectives. For example, for the three publications that were part of my PhD research1,4,8, 86% (19) of the authors are women, of which 68% (13) are first-time authors, 47% (9) are women of colour and 5 (26%) are in lower-income countries. This demonstrates that intentional efforts make a difference.Even the wording of job descriptions can exclude women. Language inherently has gendered associations, so including words such as confident, decisive, strong and outspoken in job postings has been found to attract men and deter women from applying. Many of my colleagues have felt intimidated by the tone of conservation job advertisements, which seem to be written for men. At The Nature Conservancy, we check our job descriptions and organizational plans and strategies for gendered language using a gender decoder, a tool that assesses text for masculine-coded language that could unconsciously discourage women from applying or keep women from feeling engaged with a work programme or strategy. (You can see what the decoder finds in this article here).Wherever patriarchy is deeply entrenched, men are often favoured for higher education and technical training — and women miss out. Many conservation roles have standard and mandatory educational and technical qualifications, so women are often automatically excluded from even being able to apply for a role they could otherwise be suited for.Changes in the fieldMy leadership team and I have worked to address some of the systems and processes that might inadvertently disadvantage women. For example, in the Solomon Islands, an archipelago in the south Pacific, marine conservation and research roles that require a scuba licence immediately exclude many women in the country from applying, because almost none have access to scuba training given that men are generally prioritized for training and development opportunities. In most places where The Nature Conservancy works, our employees will only ever need a mask and snorkel. Therefore, a small change in the job description means that many more women can apply. Adjusting our standard mandatory requirements has led to some fantastic women successfully applying and becoming high-performing members of our conservation teams. We now carefully omit any technical requirements that are not essential to a role or that can be easily obtained through on-the-job training.We ensure women are included in the teams that develop and implement workplace health and safety protocols, and have broadened our definition of workplace health and safety to include psychological safety and protection from gender-based violence (including sexual harassment). We worked with experienced professionals in this area to develop organization-wide guidance for our staff and partners. We also develop tailored plans depending on the country we are in to specifically address safety for women. For example, in Papua New Guinea, some women on our teams made it clear that it was unsafe for them to travel home after dark on public transport. In this country, more than two-thirds of women have experienced violence. We commissioned an official work vehicle to take staff home after hours.We ensure women have basic field equipment that is suitable for them. We provide women’s sizes in all protective gear: everything from gloves for fire protection to life jackets. This is organized before a trip or fieldwork takes place.We are also implementing protocols to ensure our conservation teams are diverse and that women are not on their own among all-male research groups. This is not only safer for women, but has repeatedly led to better conservation outcomes: the women notice things that have previously been missed. For example, in Mongolia, women in herding communities are often unable to attend important research meetings about grassland management because there is no access to toilets or because training sessions are held at times when they have caring obligations. The women on the project noticed this, and worked with the herders to ensure the infrastructure was adequate and the schedule was adjusted so that they could participate and share their unique perspectives on improving grassland conservation.Women benefit from more women being in the sector. From early-career to senior positions, representation matters. But this alone is not enough. Historically male-dominated sectors, such as conservation, that now have a relatively equal gender balance in undergraduate courses need to push for cultural change as well. This is the most difficult part of my role: challenging male leaders and systems that are not designed for women to succeed.Although we need to listen and respond to the needs of women, this is never something that should be the burden of women alone to fix. Strong leadership across our sector that prioritizes gender equity and inclusion in conservation, and provides resources to achieve it, is crucial.Women will thrive in conservation science if we keep pushing to move from equality to inclusion. Inclusion means not only that women are present, but that workplaces and programmes are designed and tailored with and for them. We shouldn’t be surprised or blame women when they don’t succeed in conservation and science workplaces and programmes that are still not actively including them. Women make up more than 50% of the population; we need to have a say in the future of our planet! More
Ellis, E. C. et al. People have shaped most of terrestrial nature for at least 12,000 years. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 118, e2023483118 (2021).Article
CAS
Google Scholar
Williams, B. A. et al. Change in terrestrial human footprint drives continued loss of intact ecosystems. One Earth 3, 371–382 (2020).Article
Google Scholar
Kuipers, K. J. J. et al. Habitat fragmentation amplifies threats from habitat loss to mammal diversity across the world’s terrestrial ecoregions. One Earth 4, 1505–1513 (2021).Article
Google Scholar
Venter, O. et al. Sixteen years of change in the global terrestrial human footprint and implications for biodiversity conservation. Nat. Commun. 7, 12558 (2016).Article
CAS
Google Scholar
Watson, J. E. M. & Venter, O. Mapping the continuum of humanity’s footprint on land. One Earth 1, 175–180 (2019).Article
Google Scholar
Foley, J. A. et al. Global consequences of land use. Science 309, 570–574 (2005).Article
CAS
Google Scholar
Glidden, C. K. et al. Human-mediated impacts on biodiversity and the consequences for zoonotic disease spillover. Curr. Biol. 31, R1342–R1361 (2021).Article
CAS
Google Scholar
Grobbelaar, A. A. et al. Resurgence of yellow fever in Angola, 2015-2016. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 22, 1854–1855 (2016).Article
Google Scholar
Gubler, D. J. Epidemic dengue/dengue hemorrhagic fever as a public health, social and economic problem in the 21st century. Trends Microbiol. 10, 100–103 (2002).Article
CAS
Google Scholar
Hotez, P. J. Neglected tropical diseases in the Anthropocene: the cases of Zika, Ebola, and other infections. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 10, e0004648 (2016).Article
Google Scholar
Paixão, E. S., Teixeira, M. G. & Rodrigues, L. C. Zika, chikungunya and dengue: the causes and threats of new and re-emerging arboviral diseases. BMJ Glob. Health 3, e000530 (2018).Article
Google Scholar
Rosenberg, R. et al. Vital signs: trends in reported vectorborne disease cases – United States and territories, 2004-2016. Morb. Mortal. Wk. Rep. 67, 496–501 (2018).Article
Google Scholar
World Malaria Report 2020: 20 Years of Global Progress and Challenges (WHO, 2020); https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/337660Lambin, E. F., Tran, A., Vanwambeke, S. O., Linard, C. & Soti, V. Pathogenic landscapes: interactions between land, people, disease vectors, and their animal hosts. Int. J. Health Geogr. 9, 54 (2010).Article
Google Scholar
Shocket, M. S. et al. Transmission of West Nile and five other temperate mosquito-borne viruses peaks at temperatures between 23 °C and 26 °C. eLife 9, e58511 (2020).Article
CAS
Google Scholar
Kilpatrick, A. M. & Randolph, S. E. Drivers, dynamics, and control of emerging vector-borne zoonotic diseases. Lancet 380, 1946–1955 (2012).Article
Google Scholar
Franklinos, L. H. V., Jones, K. E., Redding, D. W. & Abubakar, I. The effect of global change on mosquito-borne disease. Lancet Infect. Dis. 19, e302–e312 (2019).Article
Google Scholar
Keys, P. W., Barnes, E. A. & Carter, N. H. A machine-learning approach to human footprint index estimation with applications to sustainable development. Environ. Res. Lett. 16, 044061 (2021).Article
Google Scholar
Venter, O. et al. Global terrestrial human footprint maps for 1993 and 2009. Sci. Data 3, 160067 (2016).Article
Google Scholar
Di Marco, M., Ferrier, S., Harwood, T. D., Hoskins, A. J. & Watson, J. E. M. Wilderness areas halve the extinction risk of terrestrial biodiversity. Nature 573, 582–585 (2019).Article
Google Scholar
Hill, J. E., DeVault, T. L., Wang, G. & Belant, J. L. Anthropogenic mortality in mammals increases with the human footprint. Front. Ecol. Environ. 18, 13–18 (2020).Article
Google Scholar
Elsen, P. R., Monahan, W. B. & Merenlender, A. M. Topography and human pressure in mountain ranges alter expected species responses to climate change. Nat. Commun. 11, 1974 (2020).Article
CAS
Google Scholar
Su, J., Yin, H. & Kong, F. Ecological networks in response to climate change and the human footprint in the Yangtze River Delta urban agglomeration, China. Landsc. Ecol. 36, 2095–2112 (2021).Article
Google Scholar
Hansen, A. J. et al. A policy-driven framework for conserving the best of Earth’s remaining moist tropical forests. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 4, 1377–1384 (2020).Article
Google Scholar
Dos Santos, C. V. B., da Paixão Sevá, A., Werneck, G. L. & Struchiner, C. J. Does deforestation drive visceral leishmaniasis transmission? A causal analysis. Proc. R. Soc. B 288, 20211537 (2021).Article
Google Scholar
MacDonald, A. J. & Mordecai, E. A. Amazon deforestation drives malaria transmission, and malaria burden reduces forest clearing. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 116, 22212–22218 (2019).Article
CAS
Google Scholar
Honório, N. A. et al. Dispersal of Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus (Diptera: Culicidae) in an urban endemic dengue area in the State of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Mem. Inst. Oswaldo Cruz 98, 191–198 (2003).Article
Google Scholar
Rodrigues, N. B. et al. Brazilian Aedes aegypti as a competent vector for multiple complex arboviral coinfections. J. Infect. Dis. 224, 101–108 (2021).Article
Google Scholar
Weinstein, J. S., Leslie, T. F. & von Fricken, M. E. Spatial associations between land use and infectious disease: Zika virus in Colombia. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 17, E1127 (2020).Article
Google Scholar
Heukelbach, J., Alencar, C. H., Kelvin, A. A., de Oliveira, W. K. & Pamplona de Góes Cavalcanti, L. Zika virus outbreak in Brazil. J. Infect. Dev. Countr. 10, 116–120 (2016).Article
Google Scholar
Lowe, R. et al. The Zika virus epidemic in Brazil: from discovery to future implications. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 15, E96 (2018).Article
Google Scholar
Alves, M. C. G. P., de Matos, M. R., de Lourdes Reichmann, M. & Dominguez, M. H. Estimation of the dog and cat population in the State of São Paulo. Rev. Saude Publica 39, 891–897 (2005).Article
Google Scholar
Mordecai, E. A. et al. Thermal biology of mosquito-borne disease. Ecol. Lett. 22, 1690–1708 (2019).Article
Google Scholar
Gage, K. L., Burkot, T. R., Eisen, R. J. & Hayes, E. B. Climate and vectorborne diseases. Am. J. Prev. Med. 35, 436–450 (2008).Article
Google Scholar
Doenças e Agravos de Notificação – 2007 em Diante (SINAN) (DATASUS, Ministério da Saúde do Brasil, 2021); https://datasus.saude.gov.br/acesso-a-informacao/doencas-e-agravos-de-notificacao-de-2007-em-diante-sinan/SIVEP – MALÁRIA Notificação de Casos (Ministério da Saúde do Brasil, 2021); http://200.214.130.44/sivep_malaria/R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2020); https://www.R-project.org/Sorichetta, A. et al. High-resolution gridded population datasets for Latin America and the Caribbean in 2010, 2015, and 2020. Sci. Data 2, 150045 (2015).Article
Google Scholar
Harris, I., Osborn, T. J., Jones, P. & Lister, D. Version 4 of the CRU TS monthly high-resolution gridded multivariate climate dataset. Sci. Data 7, 109 (2020).Article
Google Scholar
Souza at. al. Reconstructing three decades of land use and land cover changes in Brazilian biomes with Landsat archive and Earth Engine. Remote Sens. 12, https://doi.org/10.3390/rs12172735 (2020).Fountain-Jones, N. M. et al. How to make more from exposure data? An integrated machine learning pipeline to predict pathogen exposure. J. Anim. Ecol. 88, 1447–1461 (2019).Article
Google Scholar
Breiman, L. Random forests. Mach. Learn. 45, 5–32 (2001).Article
Google Scholar
Genuer, R., Poggi, J.-M. & Tuleau-Malot, C. Variable selection using random forests. Pattern Recogn. Lett. 31, 2225–2236 (2010).Article
Google Scholar
Wei, T. et al. Package ‘corrplot’. Statistician 56, e24 (2017).
Google Scholar
Ratner, B. The correlation coefficient: its values range between +1/−1, or do they? J. Target. Meas. Anal. Mark. 17, 139–142 (2009).Article
Google Scholar
Ishwaran, H. & Kogalur, U. B. Fast unified random forests for survival, regression, and classification (RF-SRC) (2019).O’Brien, R. & Ishwaran, H. A random forests quantile classifier for class imbalanced data. Pattern Recognit. 90, 232–249 (2019).Article
Google Scholar
Silge, J. & Mahoney, M. spatialsample: spatial resampling infrastructure. R version 0.2.1 (2023).Bhatt, S. et al. The global distribution and burden of dengue. Nature 496, 504–507 (2013).Article
CAS
Google Scholar
Weaver, S. C. & Forrester, N. L. Chikungunya: evolutionary history and recent epidemic spread. Antivir. Res. 120, 32–39 (2015).Article
CAS
Google Scholar
Puntasecca, C. J., King, C. H. & LaBeaud, A. D. Measuring the global burden of chikungunya and Zika viruses: a systematic review. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 15, e0009055 (2021).Article
Google Scholar
Baeza, A., Santos-Vega, M., Dobson, A. P. & Pascual, M. The rise and fall of malaria under land-use change in frontier regions. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 1, 108 (2017).Article
Google Scholar
de Araújo Pedrosa, F. & de Alencar Ximenes, R. A. Sociodemographic and environmental risk factors for American cutaneous leishmaniasis (ACL) in the State of Alagoas, Brazil. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 81, 195–201 (2009).Article
Google Scholar
Gonçalves, N. V. et al. Cutaneous leishmaniasis: spatial distribution and environmental risk factors in the state of Pará, Brazilian Eastern Amazon. J. Infect. Dev. Countr. 13, 939–944 (2019).Article
Google Scholar
Leishmaniasis (Pan American Health Organization, 2022); https://www.paho.org/en/topics/leishmaniasisHarhay, M. O., Olliaro, P. L., Costa, D. L. & Costa, C. H. N. Urban parasitology: visceral leishmaniasis in Brazil. Trends Parasitol. 27, 403–409 (2011).Article
Google Scholar More
Liang, J. et al. Positive biodiversity-productivity relationship predominant in global forests. Science 354, aaf8957 (2016).Article
PubMed
Google Scholar
Huang, Y. et al. Impacts of species richness on productivity in a large-scale subtropical forest experiment. Science 362, 80–83 (2018).Article
ADS
CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
Luo, S. et al. Community‐wide trait means and variations affect biomass in a biodiversity experiment with tree seedlings. Oikos 129, 799–810 (2020).Article
Google Scholar
Pérez-Harguindeguy, N. et al. New handbook for standardised measurement of plant functional traits worldwide. Aust. J. Bot. 61, 167–234 (2013).Article
Google Scholar
Bergmann, J. et al. The fungal collaboration gradient dominates the root economics space in plants. Sci. Adv. 6, 1–10 (2020).Article
Google Scholar
Freschet, G. T. et al. Root traits as drivers of plant and ecosystem functioning: current understanding, pitfalls and future research needs. N. Phytol. 232, 1123–1158 (2021).Article
Google Scholar
Zhong, Y. et al. Arbuscular mycorrhizal trees influence the latitudinal beta-diversity gradient of tree communities in forests worldwide. Nat. Commun. 12, 1–12 (2021).Article
ADS
Google Scholar
Carteron, A., Vellend, M. & Laliberté, E. Mycorrhizal dominance reduces local tree species diversity across US forests. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 6, 370–374 (2022).Article
PubMed
Google Scholar
Phillips, R. P., Brzostek, E. & Midgley, M. G. The mycorrhizal‐associated nutrient economy: a new framework for predicting carbon–nutrient couplings in temperate forests. N. Phytol. 199, 41–51 (2013).Article
CAS
Google Scholar
Averill, C., Turner, B. L. & Finzi, A. C. Mycorrhiza-mediated competition between plants and decomposers drives soil carbon storage. Nature 505, 543–545 (2014).Article
ADS
CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
Craig, M. E. et al. Tree mycorrhizal type predicts within‐site variability in the storage and distribution of soil organic matter. Glob. Chang. Biol. 24, 3317–3330 (2018).Article
ADS
PubMed
Google Scholar
van der Heijden, M. G. A. et al. Mycorrhizal fungal diversity determines plant biodiversity, ecosystem variability and productivity. Nature 396, 69–72 (1998).Article
ADS
Google Scholar
Klironomos, J. N., McCune, J., Hart, M. & Neville, J. The influence of arbuscular mycorrhizae on the relationship between plant diversity and productivity. Ecol. Lett. 3, 137–141 (2000).Article
Google Scholar
Wagg, C., Jansa, J., Stadler, M., Schmid, B. & Van Der Heijden, M. G. A. Mycorrhizal fungal identity and diversity relaxes plant-plant competition. Ecology 92, 1303–1313 (2011).Article
PubMed
Google Scholar
Luo, S., Schmid, B., De Deyn, G. B. & Yu, S. Soil microbes promote complementarity effects among co‐existing trees through soil nitrogen partitioning. Funct. Ecol. 32, 1879–1889 (2018).Article
Google Scholar
Ferlian, O. et al. Mycorrhiza in tree diversity–ecosystem function relationships: conceptual framework and experimental implementation. Ecosphere 9, e02226 (2018).Article
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Tedersoo, L. & Bahram, M. Mycorrhizal types differ in ecophysiology and alter plant nutrition and soil processes. Biol. Rev. 94, 1857–1880 (2019).Article
PubMed
Google Scholar
Rineau, F. et al. The ectomycorrhizal fungus Paxillus involutus converts organic matter in plant litter using a trimmed brown-rot mechanism involving Fenton chemistry. Environ. Microbiol. 14, 1477–1487 (2012).Article
CAS
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Lindahl, B. D. & Tunlid, A. Ectomycorrhizal fungi – potential organic matter decomposers, yet not saprotrophs. N. Phytol. 205, 1443–1447 (2015).Article
CAS
Google Scholar
Hodge, A. Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi influence decomposition of, but not plant nutrient capture from, glycine patches in soil. N. Phytol. 151, 725–734 (2001).Article
CAS
Google Scholar
Read, D. J. & Perez-Moreno, J. Mycorrhizas and nutrient cycling in ecosystems – A journey towards relevance? N. Phytol. 157, 475–492 (2003).Article
CAS
Google Scholar
Toju, H., Kishida, O., Katayama, N. & Takagi, K. Networks depicting the fine-scale co-occurrences of fungi in soil horizons. PLoS ONE 11, 1–18 (2016).Article
Google Scholar
Taylor, D. L. et al. A first comprehensive census of fungi in soil reveals both hyperdiversity and fine-scale niche partitioning. Ecol. Monogr. 84, 3–20 (2014).Article
Google Scholar
Chen, W. et al. Root morphology and mycorrhizal symbioses together shape nutrient foraging strategies of temperate trees. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, 8741–8746 (2016).Article
ADS
CAS
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Liu, X. et al. Partitioning of soil phosphorus among arbuscular and ectomycorrhizal trees in tropical and subtropical forests. Ecol. Lett. 21, 713–723 (2018).Article
PubMed
Google Scholar
Averill, C., Bhatnagar, J. M., Dietze, M. C., Pearse, W. D. & Kivlin, S. N. Global imprint of mycorrhizal fungi on whole-plant nutrient economics. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 23163–23168 (2019).Article
ADS
CAS
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Dietrich, P. et al. Tree diversity effects on productivity depend on mycorrhizae and life strategies in a temperate forest experiment. Ecology 104, e3896 https://doi.org/10.1002/ecy.3896 (2022).Averill, C., Dietze, M. C. & Bhatnagar, J. M. Continental-scale nitrogen pollution is shifting forest mycorrhizal associations and soil carbon stocks. Glob. Chang. Biol. 24, 4544–4553 (2018).Article
ADS
PubMed
Google Scholar
Jo, I., Fei, S., Oswalt, C. M., Domke, G. M. & Phillips, R. P. Shifts in dominant tree mycorrhizal associations in response to anthropogenic impacts. Sci. Adv. 5, eaav6358, (2019).Fei, S. et al. Impacts of climate on the biodiversity-productivity relationship in natural forests. Nat. Commun. 9, 5436 (2018).Article
ADS
CAS
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Bongers, F. J. et al. Functional diversity effects on productivity increase with age in a forest biodiversity experiment. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 5, 1594–1603 (2021).Article
PubMed
Google Scholar
Schoener, T. W. Resource partitioning in ecological communities. Science 185, 27–39 (1974).Article
ADS
CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
Tilman, D., Lehman, C. L. & Thomson, K. T. Plant diversity and ecosystem productivity: theoretical considerations. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 94, 1857–1861 (1997).Article
ADS
CAS
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Schwilk, D. W. & Ackerly, D. D. Limiting similarity and functional diversity along environmental gradients. Ecol. Lett. 8, 272–281 (2005).Article
Google Scholar
Wagg, C., Jansa, J., Schmid, B. & van der Heijden, M. G. A. Belowground biodiversity effects of plant symbionts support aboveground productivity. Ecol. Lett. 14, 1001–1009 (2011).Article
PubMed
Google Scholar
Agerer, R. Exploration types of ectomycorrhizae: a proposal to classify ectomycorrhizal mycelial systems according to their patterns of differentiation and putative ecological importance. Mycorrhiza 11, 107–114 (2001).Article
Google Scholar
Cheng, L. et al. Mycorrhizal fungi and roots are complementary in foraging within nutrient patches. Ecology 97, 2815–2823 (2016).Article
PubMed
Google Scholar
Wambsganss, J. et al. Tree species mixing causes a shift in fine-root soil exploitation strategies across European forests. Funct. Ecol. 35, 1886–1902 (2021).Article
CAS
Google Scholar
Gerz, M., Guillermo Bueno, C., Ozinga, W. A., Zobel, M. & Moora, M. Niche differentiation and expansion of plant species are associated with mycorrhizal symbiosis. J. Ecol. 106, 254–264 (2018).Article
CAS
Google Scholar
Niklaus, P. A., Baruffol, M., He, J. S., Ma, K. & Schmid, B. Can niche plasticity promote biodiversity–productivity relationships through increased complementarity? Ecology 98, 1104–1116 (2017).Article
PubMed
Google Scholar
Barry, K. E. et al. The future of complementarity: disentangling causes from consequences. Trends Ecol. Evol. 34, 167–180 (2019).Article
PubMed
Google Scholar
Jacobs, L. M., Sulman, B. N., Brzostek, E. R., Feighery, J. J. & Phillips, R. P. Interactions among decaying leaf litter, root litter and soil organic matter vary with mycorrhizal type. J. Ecol. 106, 502–513 (2018).Article
CAS
Google Scholar
Midgley, M. G., Brzostek, E. & Phillips, R. P. Decay rates of leaf litters from arbuscular mycorrhizal trees are more sensitive to soil effects than litters from ectomycorrhizal trees. J. Ecol. 103, 1454–1463 (2015).Article
Google Scholar
Kumar, A., Phillips, R. P., Scheibe, A., Klink, S. & Pausch, J. Organic matter priming by invasive plants depends on dominant mycorrhizal association. Soil Biol. Biochem. 140, 107645 (2020).Article
CAS
Google Scholar
Tedersoo, L., Bahram, M. & Zobel, M. How mycorrhizal associations drive plant population and community biology. Science 367, eaba1223 (2020).Article
CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
Kitajima, K. & Poorter, L. Functional basis for resource niche partitioning by tropical trees. Trop. For. community Ecol. 1936, 160–181 (2008).MacArthur, R. H. Patterns of species diverstiy. Biol. Rev. 40, 510–533 (1965).Article
Google Scholar
Pellissier, V., Barnagaud, J. Y., Kissling, W. D., Şekercioğlu, Ç. & Svenning, J. C. Niche packing and expansion account for species richness–productivity relationships in global bird assemblages. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 27, 604–615 (2018).Article
Google Scholar
Huang, Y. et al. Effects of enemy exclusion on biodiversity–productivity relationships in a subtropical forest experiment. J. Ecol. 110, 2167–2178. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2745.13940 (2022).Tilman, D. Community invasibility, recruitment limitation, and grassland biodiversity. Ecology 78, 81–92 (1997).Article
Google Scholar
Feng, Y. et al. Multispecies forest plantations outyield monocultures across a broad range of conditions. Science 376, 865–868 (2022).Article
ADS
CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
Harper, J. L. Population biology of plants. (1977).Ewel, J. J. Designing agricultural ecosystems for the humid tropics. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 17, 245–271 (1986).Article
Google Scholar
Grossiord, C. Having the right neighbors: how tree species diversity modulates drought impacts on forests. N. Phytol. 228, 42–49 (2020).Article
Google Scholar
Allen, M. F. Mycorrhizal fungi: highways for water and nutrients in arid soils. Vadose Zo. J. 6, 291–297 (2007).Article
Google Scholar
Brzostek, E. R. et al. Chronic water stress reduces tree growth and the carbon sink of deciduous hardwood forests. Glob. Chang. Biol. 20, 2531–2539 (2014).Article
ADS
PubMed
Google Scholar
Liese, R., Lübbe, T., Albers, N. W. & Meier, I. C. The mycorrhizal type governs root exudation and nitrogen uptake of temperate tree species. Tree Physiol. 38, 83–95 (2018).Article
CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
Steidinger, B. S. et al. Climatic controls of decomposition drive the global biogeography of forest-tree symbioses. Nature 569, 404–408 (2019).Article
ADS
CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
Linton, M. J., Sperry, J. S. & Williams, D. G. Limits to water transport in Juniperus osteosperma and Pinus edulis: Implications for drought tolerance and regulation of transpiration. Funct. Ecol. 12, 906–911 (1998).Article
Google Scholar
Johnson, D. M. et al. Co-occurring woody species have diverse hydraulic strategies and mortality rates during an extreme drought. Plant. Cell Environ. 41, 576–588 (2018).Article
CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
Lin, G. et al. Mycorrhizal associations of tree species influence soil nitrogen dynamics via effects on soil acid–base chemistry. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 31, 168–182 (2022).Article
Google Scholar
Read, D. J. Mycorrhizas in ecosystems. Experientia 47, 376–391 (1991).Article
Google Scholar
Hobbie, S. E. Plant species effects on nutrient cycling: revisiting litter feedbacks. Trends Ecol. Evol. 30, 357–363 (2015).Article
PubMed
Google Scholar
De Schrijver, A. et al. Tree species traits cause divergence in soil acidification during four decades of postagricultural forest development. Glob. Chang. Biol. 18, 1127–1140 (2012).Article
ADS
Google Scholar
Loreau, M. & Hector, A. Partitioning selection and complementarity in biodiversity experiments. Nature 412, 72–76 (2001).Article
ADS
CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
Braghiere, R. K. et al. Modeling global carbon costs of plant nitrogen and phosphorus acquisition. J. Adv. Model. Earth Syst. 14, 1–23 (2022).Article
Google Scholar
Eisenhauer, N. et al. Biotic interactions as mediators of context-dependent biodiversity-ecosystem functioning relationships. Res. Ideas Outcomes 8, e85873 (2022).Article
Google Scholar
Fisher, J. B. et al. Tree-mycorrhizal associations detected remotely from canopy spectral properties. Glob. Chang. Biol. 22, 2596–2607 (2016).Article
ADS
PubMed
Google Scholar
Soudzilovskaia, N. A. et al. Global mycorrhizal plant distribution linked to terrestrial carbon stocks. Nat. Commun. 10, 1–10 (2019).Article
CAS
Google Scholar
Burrill, E. A. et al. The forest inventory and analysis database. USDA . Serv. 2, 1026 (2015).
Google Scholar
Chao, A., Chiu, C.-H. & Jost, L. Unifying species diversity, phylogenetic diversity, functional diversity, and related similarity and differentiation measures through hill numbers. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 45, 297–324 (2014).Article
Google Scholar
Cleland, D. T. et al. Ecological subregions: Sections and subsections for the conterminous United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-76D (2007).Soudzilovskaia, N. A. et al. FungalRoot: global online database of plant mycorrhizal associations. N. Phytol. 227, 955–966 (2020).Article
Google Scholar
Gallion, J. et al. Indiana DNR State Forest Properties Report of Continuous Forest Inventory (CFI) Summary of years 2015–2019. 1–25 (2020).Dormann, C. F. et al. Methods to account for spatial autocorrelation in the analysis of species distributional data: a review. Ecography 30, 609–628 (2007).Article
Google Scholar
Craven, D. et al. A cross-scale assessment of productivity–diversity relationships. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 29, 1940–1955 (2020).Article
Google Scholar
Paquette, A. & Messier, C. The effect of biodiversity on tree productivity: from temperate to boreal forests. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 20, 170–180 (2011).Article
Google Scholar
R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URL https://www.R-project.org/ (2020).Dowle, M. & Srinivasan, A. data.table: Extension of ‘data.frame‘. R package version 1.14.2 (2021).Wickham, H. ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis. Springer-Verlag New York, 2016.Kassambara, A. ggpubr: ‘ggplot2’ Based Publication Ready Plots. R package version 0.4.0 (2020).Dunnington, D. ggspatial: Spatial Data Framework for ggplot2. R package version 1.1.5 (2021).Robert, J. Hijmans. raster: Geographic Data Analysis and Modeling. R package version 3.5-2 (2021).Wickham, H., François, R., Henry, L. & Müller, K. dplyr: A Grammar of Data Manipulation. R package version 1.0.8 (2022).Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B. & Walker, S. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J. Stat. Softw. 67, 1–48 (2015).Article
Google Scholar
Lefcheck, J. S. piecewiseSEM: piecewise structural equation modeling in R for ecology, evolution, and systematics. Methods Ecol. Evol. 7, 573–579 (2016).Article
Google Scholar
Luo, S. et al. High productivity in forests with mixed mycorrhizal strategies. Figshare https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.22060238. (2023). More
Non-prokaryotic metagenomic sequences confound average genome size estimationsIn this work, we employed MicrobeCensus22 for de novo estimation of the average genome size (AGS) of microorganisms captured in shotgun metagenome sequences (Fig. 1a; Supplementary Data 1). Briefly, MicrobeCensus optimally aligns metagenomic reads to a set of 30 conserved single-copy gene (CSCG) families found in prokaryotes 22. Based on these mappings, the relative abundance of each CSCG is then computed and used to estimate AGS based on the proportionality principle—that is, the AGS of the community is inversely proportional to the relative abundance of each marker genes22. Finally, a weighted average AGS is calculated that excludes outliers to obtain a robust AGS estimate for a given metagenomic sample22.Fig. 1: Eukaryotic and viral metagenomic reads bias AGS estimates in marine microbial metagenomes.a Schematic workflow of procedures used for estimating AGS in metagenomic samples. AGS is estimated based directly on preprocessed high-quality metagenomic reads (AGS1) and after three iterative steps to remove potential eukaryotic reads (AGS2) and viral reads detected based on the RefSeq viral genome database (AGS3) or de novo (AGS4). See the “Methods” section for more details. b Relationship between depth and proportion of total putative eukaryotic and viral sequences in marine metagenomic collections. The blue line indicates the fitted one-tailed Spearman correlation (r), with the corresponding 95% confidence intervals for the curve indicated by grey bands. The density distribution of the estimated proportion of contaminants is shown in green, with the corresponding median values (µ) highlighted. Values in parenthesis denote the filter size range of sampled metagenomes. c The fraction of ‘contaminating’ reads is highest in the epipelagic ocean relative to other ocean depth layers. EPI Epipelagic (~3–200 m), MES Mesopelagic (200–1000 m), BAT Bathypelagic (1000–4000 m). Values in parenthesis indicate the number of metagenomes. Only the results from the Malaspina Vertical Profiles (MProfile) metagenomes are shown as they cover greater depths of the global ocean (mean 1114 m; Supplementary Data 1). d Eukaryotic and viral metagenomic sequences significantly increase AGS estimates for prokaryotic plankton in marine metagenomes. Values in parenthesis show number of metagenomes for AGS1 and AGS2. e AGS estimates decreased in most metagenomic samples (85%; n = 220) after decontamination compared to predictions directly from preprocessed metagenomes by 1–19% (n = 39). Boxplots (c–e) show the median as middle horizontal (c, d) or vertical (e) lines and interquartile ranges as boxes (whiskers extend no further than 1.5 times the interquartile ranges). Data are shown as circular symbols, while mean values are shown as white colored diamonds. Values at the top (c, d) indicate the adjusted significant P-values of the unpaired (c) and paired (d) two-sided Wilcoxon test with Benjamini-Hochberg correction. Source data are provided as a Source Data file.Full size imageOf note, the AGS of complete prokaryotic genomes increases with the cumulative number of associated phages and other mobile genetic elements37. Similarly, AGS estimates derived from metagenomic sequences of uncultured “free-living” microbes (captured in 0.1–3 µm-size filters) may also be affected by putative phage and eukaryotic microbiomes sequenced concurrently in fractionated seawater samples (see,8,22). To evaluate this possibility in our AGS predictions, we compared AGS estimates obtained directly from quality-controlled metagenomes with estimates from the same metagenomes iteratively subjected to three (de novo) decontamination procedures to filter out potential eukaryotic and viral sequence reads (Fig. 1a; see details in the “Methods” section). Overall, putatively ‘contaminating’ viral and eukaryotic reads accounted for 1% to 20% (average 7.5%) of the high-quality trimmed sequences in the four microbial metagenome collections (Fig. 1b; Supplementary Data 1). As expected, the average proportion of contaminating sequences in metagenomes from large (0.2–3.0 µm) and small (0.1–1.2 µm) size fraction filters were the highest (~11%) and lowest (~5%), respectively (Fig. 1b). In addition, the proportion of contaminating reads was significantly dependent on the depth layer of the ocean (Kruskal-Wallis χ2 = 32.40, df = 2, p 200–1000 m), and bathypelagic (BAT, > 1000–4000 m). c AGS estimates in the “free-living” (0.2–0.8 µm) and particle-associated (0.8–20 µm) bathypelagic microbiome sampled latitudinally at 4000 m depth during the Malaspina expedition. Boxplots show the median as middle horizontal line and interquartile ranges as boxes (whiskers extend no further than 1.5 times the interquartile ranges). Data are shown as circular symbols, while mean values are shown as white colored diamonds. Values at the top indicate the adjusted significant P-values of the unpaired (b) and paired (c) two-sided Wilcoxon test with Benjamini-Hochberg correction. The number of metagenomes analyzed is indicated in parentheses in all three panels. Source data are provided as a Source Data file.Full size imageThe median AGS estimate range of 2.2 to ~3.0 Mbp in the sampled free-living (0.1–3 µm in size) marine prokaryotic communities (n = 209 metagenomes) is consistent with other large-scale metagenome sequence-based estimates and the sizes of metagenome-assembled prokaryotic genomes (MAGs; in 0.22–3 µm filters) from the photic ocean (surface to mesopelagic) based on the Tara Oceans Expedition (1.5–2.3 Mbp)15,16. Overall, our metagenome sequence-based AGS estimates support the unimodal distribution of prokaryotic genome sizes recently demonstrated in environmental genomes in several biomes38 and on cultured isolates (including marine bacterioplankton)14,39. However, estimates from isolates are likely biased since current cultivation approaches tend to favor copiotrophs (see, ref. 3).We next tested whether the derived AGS estimates depended on microbial cell size by analyzing 25 paired bathypelagic metagenomes (MDeep; Supplementary Data 1) sampled during the global Malaspina Expedition40 in which both prokaryotic life strategies, free-living (0.2–0.8 µm size) and particle-associated (0.8–20 µm size), were sampled simultaneously35. The analyzed metagenomes (MDeep) were from the Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian Ocean provinces and cover a spatial distance of 9437 km with an average depth (± SD) of 3688 ± 526 m at the tropical and subtropical latitudes (–33.55°N to 32.0788°N). These microbial metagenomes were also screened for contaminating eukaryotic and viral sequences as indicated in Fig. 1a (see details in the “Methods” section and Supplementary Data 1). The genomes of bathypelagic prokaryotes associated with marine particles (5.6 ± 0.97 Mbp) were twice as large (paired two-sided Wilcoxon test, p 3 µm) prokaryotes, respectively (Supplementary Data 3). These estimates are also consistent with those of MAGs reconstructed from the same metagenomes in the Challenger Deep (Mariana Trench)43. Overall, this reinforces the patterns of larger AGS in particle-associated compared to free-living bathypelagic prokaryotes, and larger microbial genomes in the deep ocean compared to the upper ocean.AGS patterns are not geographically constrainedExamination of the geographic patterns of AGS estimates showed that AGS distribution was independent of geographic distance in both the regional (Red Sea, Mantel statistic r = 0.01824, p = 0.2971) and global (MProfile, r = –0.01413, p = 0.7924) ocean metagenomes. Furthermore, AGS estimates in the vertically profiled global Malaspina metagenomes (MProfile, n = 81) were significantly independent of the Longhurst biogeochemical province sampled (n = 9; Kruskal-Wallis χ2 = 1.0006, df = 8, p = 0.9982; Supplementary Data 1). The lack of covariance between the patterns of AGS estimates and geographic distance or Longhurst province sampled may reflect the high connectivity of microbial communities throughout the global ocean, particularly the redistributive effects of circulation by ocean currents and other transport processes, as well as the enormous population sizes of plankton that allow dispersal constraints to be overcome44,45. This is consistent with the relatively small differences in microbial assemblages recently found in different ocean basins23,46. Another possible explanation is the effect of seasonality, which can cause selection of different taxa, resulting in the succession of microbial communities and affecting their distribution (see, ref. 47), and thus influence AGS patterns.An assessment of the relationship between AGS and measured environmental variables (Supplementary Fig. S1; Data 1)—separately for the Red Sea metagenomes (regional scale) and Malaspina Vertical Profiles metagenomes (global scale), showed that the cumulative effect of temperature, salinity, dissolved oxygen, and depth on AGS patterns was significant at both the regional scale (n = 45; Mantel statistic r = 0.1944, p = 0.0057) and the global scale (n = 81; Mantel statistic r = 0.1779, p = 1 × 10–4). This result suggests that environmental conditions are a driving force behind predicted AGS patterns in the marine microbiome. While no significant interaction effect was evident between many environmental variables (i.e., salinity, depth, oxygen, nitrate, and phosphate) in controlling AGS patterns (one-way ANOVA, p More
Barnosky, A. D. et al. Has the Earth’s sixth mass extinction already arrived? Nature 471, 51–57 (2011).Article
ADS
CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
Ceballos, G., Ehrlich, P. R. & Dirzo, R. Biological annihilation via the ongoing sixth mass extinction signaled by vertebrate population losses and declines. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, E6089–E6096 (2017).Article
ADS
CAS
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Cowie, R. H., Bouchet, P. & Fontaine, B. The Sixth Mass Extinction: fact, fiction or speculation? Biol. Rev. 97, 640–663 (2022).Article
PubMed
Google Scholar
Dirzo, R. et al. Defaunation in the anthropocene. Science 345, 401–406 (2014).Article
ADS
CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
Ceballos, G. et al. Accelerated modern human–induced species losses: entering the sixth mass extinction. Sci. Adv. 1, e1400253 (2015).Article
ADS
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Pimm, S. L. et al. The biodiversity of species and their rates of extinction, distribution, and protection. Science 344, 1246752 (2014).Article
CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
Urban, M. et al. Accelerating extinction risk from climate change. Science 348, 571–573 (2015).Article
ADS
CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
Pincheira-Donoso, D. et al. Temporal and spatial patterns of vertebrate extinctions during the Anthropocene. Preprint at bioRxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.05.05.490605 (2022).Brook, B. W., Sodhi, N. S. & Bradshaw, C. J. A. Synergies among extinction drivers under global change. Trends Ecol. Evol. 23, 453–460 (2008).Article
PubMed
Google Scholar
Pacifici, M. et al. Assessing species vulnerability to climate change. Nat. Clim. Change 5, 215–224 (2015).Article
ADS
Google Scholar
Thomas, C. D. et al. Extinction risk from climate change. Nature 427, 145–148 (2004).Article
ADS
CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
Warren, R. et al. Quantifying the benefit of early climate change mitigation in avoiding biodiversity loss. Nat. Clim. Change 3, 678–682 (2013).Article
ADS
Google Scholar
Román-Palacios, C. & Wiens, J. J. Recent responses to climate change reveal the drivers of species extinction and survival. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117, 4211–4217 (2020).Article
ADS
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Gaston, K. J., Jackson, S. F., Cantú-Salazar, L. & Cruz-Piñón, G. The ecological performance of protected areas. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 39, 93–113 (2008).Article
Google Scholar
Saout, S. L. et al. Protected areas and effective biodiversity conservation. Science 342, 803–805 (2013).Article
ADS
PubMed
Google Scholar
Watson, J. E. M., Dudley, N., Segan, D. B. & Hockings, M. The performance and potential of protected areas. Nature 515, 67–73 (2014).Article
ADS
CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
Araújo, M. B., Alagador, D., Cabeza, M., Noguésbravo, D. & Thuiller, W. Climate change threatens European conservation areas. Ecol. Lett. 14, 484–492 (2011).Article
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Chen, Y., Zhang, J., Jiang, J., Nielsen, S. & He, F. Assessing the effectiveness of China’s protected areas to conserve current and future amphibian diversity. Divers. Distrib. 23, 146–157 (2017).Article
Google Scholar
Jenkins, C. N. & Joppa, L. Expansion of the global terrestrial protected area system. Biol. Conserv. 142, 2166–2174 (2009).Article
Google Scholar
Johnston, A. et al. Observed and predicted effects of climate change on species abundance in protected areas. Nat. Clim. Change 3, 1055–1061 (2013).Article
ADS
Google Scholar
Lehikoinen, P., Santangeli, A., Jaatinen, K., Rajasärkkä, A. & Lehikoinen, A. Protected areas act as a buffer against detrimental effects of climate change-evidence from large-scale, long-term abundance data. Glob. Change Biol. 25, 304–313 (2018).Article
ADS
Google Scholar
Coetzee, B. W. T., Robertson, M. P., Erasmus, B. F. N., Rensburg, B. J. V. & Thuiller, W. Ensemble models predict Important Bird Areas in southern Africa will become less effective for conserving endemic birds under climate change. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 18, 701–710 (2009).Article
Google Scholar
Araújo, M. B., Cabeza, M., Thuiller, W., Hannah, L. & Williams, P. H. Would climate change drive species out of reserves? An assessment of existing reserve‐selection methods. Glob. Change Biol. 10, 1618–1626 (2004).Article
ADS
Google Scholar
Pouzols, F. M. et al. Global protected area expansion is compromised by projected land-use and parochialism. Nature 516, 383–386 (2014).Article
ADS
Google Scholar
Monzn, J., Moyer-Horner, L. & Palamar, M. B. Climate change and species range dynamics in protected areas. Bioscience 61, 752–761 (2011).Article
Google Scholar
Newbold, T., Oppenheimer, P., Etard, A. & Williams, J. J. Tropical and Mediterranean biodiversity is disproportionately sensitive to land-use and climate change. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 4, 1630–1638 (2020).Article
PubMed
Google Scholar
Liu, X. et al. Animal invaders threaten protected areas worldwide. Nat. Commun. 11, 2892 (2020).Article
ADS
CAS
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Carlson, C. J. et al. Climate change increases cross-species viral transmission risk. Nature 607, 555–562 (2022).Article
ADS
CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
Mi, C., Huettmann, F. & Guo, Y. Climate envelope predictions indicate an enlarged suitable wintering distribution for Great Bustards (Otis tarda dybowskii) in China for the 21st century. Peerj 4, e1630–e1630 (2016).Article
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Guisan, A. et al. Predicting species distributions for conservation decisions. Ecol. Lett. 16, 1424–1435 (2013).Article
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Zhu, G., Papeş, M., Giam, X., Cho, S.-H. & Armsworth, P. R. Are protected areas well-sited to support species in the future in a major climate refuge and corridor in the United States? Biol. Conserv. 255, 108982 (2021).Article
Google Scholar
Gutiérrez, J. A. & Duivenvoorden, J. F. Can we expect to protect threatened species in protected areas? A case study of the genus Pinus in Mexico. Rev. Mexicana Biodivers. 81, 875–882 (2010).
Google Scholar
Velásquez-Tibatá, J., Salaman, P. & Graham, C. H. Effects of climate change on species distribution, community structure, and conservation of birds in protected areas in Colombia. Reg. Environ. Change 13, 235–248 (2013).Article
Google Scholar
Riquelme, C. et al. Protected areas’ effectiveness under climate change: a latitudinal distribution projection of an endangered mountain ungulate along the Andes Range. Peerj 6, e5222 (2018).Article
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Bazzichetto, M. et al. Plant invasion risk: a quest for invasive species distribution modelling in managing protected areas. Ecol. Indic. 95, 311–319 (2018).Article
Google Scholar
Hannah, L. et al. Protected area needs in a changing climate. Front. Ecol. Environ. 5, 131–138 (2007).Article
Google Scholar
Cox, N. et al. A global reptile assessment highlights shared conservation needs of tetrapods. Nature 695, 285–290 (2022).Article
ADS
Google Scholar
IUCN. The IUCN red list of threatened species. http://www.iucnredlist.org/ (2021).Wake, D. B. & Vredenburg, V. T. Are we in the midst of the sixth mass extinction? A view from the world of amphibians. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 105, 11466–11473 (2008).Article
ADS
CAS
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Cordier, J. M. et al. A global assessment of amphibian and reptile responses to land-use changes. Biol. Conserv. 253, 108863 (2021).Article
Google Scholar
Powers, R. P. & Jetz, W. Global habitat loss and extinction risk of terrestrial vertebrates under future land-use-change scenarios. Nat. Clim. Change 9, 323–329 (2019).Article
ADS
Google Scholar
Pounds, J. A. et al. Widespread amphibian extinctions from epidemic disease driven by global warming. Nature 439, 161–167 (2006).Article
ADS
CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
Scheele, B. C. et al. Amphibian fungal panzootic causes catastrophic and ongoing loss of biodiversity. Science 363, 1459–1463 (2019).Article
ADS
CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
Blaustein, A. R. & Kiesecker, J. M. Complexity in conservation: lessons from the global decline of amphibian populations. Ecol. Lett. 5, 597–608 (2002).Article
Google Scholar
Kraus, F. Impacts from invasive reptiles and amphibians. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 46, 75–97 (2015).Article
Google Scholar
Alford, R. A., Bradfield, K. S. & Richards, S. J. Global warming and amphibian losses. Nature 447, E3–E4 (2007).Article
ADS
CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
Hof, C., Araújo, M. B., Jetz, W. & Rahbek, C. Additive threats from pathogens, climate and land-use change for global amphibian diversity. Nature 480, 516–519 (2011).Article
ADS
CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
Rohr, J. R. & Raffel, T. R. Linking global climate and temperature variability to widespread amphibian declines putatively caused by disease. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 107, 8269–8274 (2008).Article
ADS
Google Scholar
Pincheira‐Donoso, D. et al. The global macroecology of brood size in amphibians reveals a predisposition of low‐fecundity species to extinction. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 30, 1299–1310 (2021).Article
Google Scholar
Smith, M. A. & Green, D. M. Dispersal and the metapopulation paradigm in amphibian ecology and conservation: are all amphibian populations metapopulations? Ecography 28, 110–128 (2005).Article
Google Scholar
Borzée, A. et al. Climate change-based models predict range shifts in the distribution of the only Asian plethodontid salamander: Karsenia koreana. Sci. Rep. 9, 11838 (2019).Article
ADS
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Heller, N. E. & Zavaleta, E. S. Biodiversity management in the face of climate change: a review of 22 years of recommendations. Biol. Conserv. 142, 14–32 (2009).Article
Google Scholar
Haight, J. & Hammill, E. Protected areas as potential refugia for biodiversity under climatic change. Biol. Conserv. 241, 108258 (2020).Article
Google Scholar
Thomas, C. D. et al. Protected areas facilitate species’ range expansions. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109, 14063–14068 (2012).Article
ADS
CAS
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Lawson, C. R., Bennie, J. J., Thomas, C. D., Hodgson, J. A. & Wilson, R. J. Active management of protected areas enhances metapopulation expansion under climate change. Conserv. Lett. 7, 111–118 (2014).Article
Google Scholar
Beale, C. M., Baker, N. E., Brewer, M. J. & Lennon, J. J. Protected area networks and savannah bird biodiversity in the face of climate change and land degradation. Ecol. Lett. 16, 1061–1068 (2013).Article
PubMed
Google Scholar
D’Amen, M. et al. Will climate change reduce the efficacy of protected areas for amphibian conservation in Italy? Biol. Conserv. 144, 989–997 (2011).Article
Google Scholar
Singh, M. Evaluating the impact of future climate and forest cover change on the ability of Southeast (SE) Asia’s protected areas to provide coverage to the habitats of threatened avian species. Ecol. Indic. 114, 106307 (2020).Article
Google Scholar
Hole, D. G. et al. Projected impacts of climate change on a continent‐wide protected area network. Ecol. Lett. 12, 420–431 (2009).Article
PubMed
Google Scholar
Lehikoinen, P. et al. Increasing protected area coverage mitigates climate-driven community changes. Biol. Conserv. 253, 108892 (2021).Article
Google Scholar
Araújo, M. B., Thuiller, W. & Pearson, R. G. Climate warming and the decline of amphibians and reptiles in Europe. J. Biogeogr. 33, 1712–1728 (2006).Article
Google Scholar
Girardello, M., Griggio, M., Whittingham, M. J. & Rushton, S. P. Models of climate associations and distributions of amphibians in Italy. Ecol. Res. 25, 103–111 (2010).Article
Google Scholar
McMenamin, S. K., Hadly, E. A. & Wright, C. K. Climatic change and wetland desiccation cause amphibian decline in Yellowstone National Park. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 105, 16988–16993 (2008).Article
ADS
CAS
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Ficetola, G. F. & Maiorano, L. Contrasting effects of temperature and precipitation change on amphibian phenology, abundance and performance. Oecologia 181, 683–693 (2016).Article
ADS
PubMed
Google Scholar
Bickford, D., Howard, S. D., Ng, D. J. J. & Sheridan, J. A. Impacts of climate change on the amphibians and reptiles of Southeast Asia. Biodivers. Conserv. 19, 1043–1062 (2010).Article
Google Scholar
Manne, L. L., Brooks, T. M. & Pimm, S. L. Relative risk of extinction of passerine birds on continents and islands. Nature 399, 258–261 (1999).Article
ADS
CAS
Google Scholar
Jenkins, C. N., Pimm, S. L. & Joppa, L. N. Global patterns of terrestrial vertebrate diversity and conservation. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110, E2602–E2610 (2013).Article
ADS
CAS
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Pearson, R. G. et al. Life history and spatial traits predict extinction risk due to climate change. Nat. Clim. Change 4, 217–221 (2014).Article
ADS
Google Scholar
Wauchope, H. S. et al. Protected areas have a mixed impact on waterbirds, but management helps. Nature 605, 103–107 (2022).Article
ADS
CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
WWF. Tropical and Subtropical Moist Broadleaf Forest Ecoregions (World Wide Fund for Nature, 2019).Rodrigues, A. S. L. et al. Global gap analysis: priority regions for expanding the global protected-area network. Bioscience 54, 1092–1100 (2004).Article
Google Scholar
Hidasi‐Neto, J., Loyola, R. & Cianciaruso, M. V. Global and local evolutionary and ecological distinctiveness of terrestrial mammals: identifying priorities across scales. Divers. Distrib. 21, 548–559 (2015).Article
Google Scholar
Martin, J.-L., Maris, V. & Simberloff, D. S. The need to respect nature and its limits challenges society and conservation science. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, 6105–6112 (2016).Article
ADS
CAS
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Czech, B., Krausman, P. & Devers, P. Economic associations among causes of species endangerment in the United States. Bioscience 50, 593–601 (2000).Article
Google Scholar
CBD. First draft of the post-2020 global biodiversity framework. https://www.cbd.int/doc/c/abb5/591f/2e46096d3f0330b08ce87a45/wg2020-03-03-en.pdf (2021).Roll, U. et al. The global distribution of tetrapods reveals a need for targeted reptile conservation. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 1, 1677–1682 (2017).Article
PubMed
Google Scholar
Ficetola, G. F. et al. An evaluation of the robustness of global amphibian range maps. J. Biogeogr. 41, 211–221 (2014).Article
Google Scholar
Aiello‐Lammens, M. E., Boria, R. A., Radosavljevic, A., Vilela, B. & Anderson, R. P. spThin: an R package for spatial thinning of species occurrence records for use in ecological niche models. Ecography 38, 541–545 (2015).Article
Google Scholar
Erfanian, M. B., Sagharyan, M., Memariani, F. & Ejtehadi, H. Predicting range shifts of three endangered endemic plants of the Khorassan-Kopet Dagh floristic province under global change. Sci. Rep. 11, 9159 (2021).Article
ADS
CAS
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Brown, J. L., Cameron, A., Yoder, A. D. & Vences, M. A necessarily complex model to explain the biogeography of the amphibians and reptiles of Madagascar. Nat. Commun. 5, 5046 (2014).Article
ADS
CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
Gaston, K. J. Rarity as double jeopardy. Nature 394, 229–230 (1998).Article
ADS
CAS
Google Scholar
Hijmans, R. J., Cameron, S. E., Parra, J. L., Jones, P. G. & Jarvis, A. Very high resolution interpolated climate surfaces for global land areas. Int. J. Climatol. 25, 1965–1978 (2005).Article
Google Scholar
Li, X., Liu, X., Kraus, F., Tingley, R. & Li, Y. Risk of biological invasions is concentrated in biodiversity hotspots. Front. Ecol. Environ. 14, 411–417 (2016).Article
Google Scholar
Naimi, B., Hamm, N. A. S., Groen, T. A., Skidmore, A. K. & Toxopeus, A. G. Where is positional uncertainty a problem for species distribution modelling? Ecography 37, 191–203 (2014).Article
Google Scholar
Xin, X., Wu, T. & Zhang, J. Introduction of CMIP5 experiments carried out with the climate system models of beijing climate center. Adv. Clim. Change Res. 4, 41–49 (2013).Article
Google Scholar
Voldoire, A. et al. The CNRM-CM5.1 global climate model: description and basic evaluation. Clim. Dyn. 40, 2091–2121 (2013).Article
Google Scholar
Watanabe, S. et al. MIROC-ESM 2010: model description and basic results of CMIP5-20c3m experiments. Geosci. Model Dev. 4, 845–872 (2011).Article
ADS
Google Scholar
Mi, C. et al. Temperate and tropical lizards are vulnerable to climate warming due to increased water loss and heat stress. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B. Biol. Sci. 289, 20221074 (2022).
Google Scholar
Naimi, B. & Araújo, M. B. sdm: a reproducible and extensible R platform for species distribution modelling. Ecography 39, 368–375 (2016).Article
Google Scholar
Holt, B. G. et al. An update of Wallace’s zoogeographic regions of the world. Science 339, 74–78 (2013).Article
ADS
CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
Barbet-Massin, M., Jiguet, F., Albert, C. H. & Thuiller, W. Selecting pseudo-absences for species distribution models: how, where and how many?: How to use pseudo-absences in niche modelling? Methods Ecol. Evol. 3, 327–338 (2012).Article
Google Scholar
Andrade, A. F. A., de, Velazco, S. J. E. & Júnior, P. D. M. ENMTML: an R package for a straightforward construction of complex ecological niche models. Environ. Modell. Softw. 125, 104615 (2020).Article
Google Scholar
Senay, S. D., Worner, S. P. & Ikeda, T. Novel three-step pseudo-absence selection technique for improved species distribution modelling. PLos ONE 8, e71218 (2013).Article
ADS
CAS
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Thuiller, W. BIOMOD–optimizing predictions of species distributions and projecting potential future shifts under global change. Glob. Change Biol. 9, 1353–1362 (2003).Article
ADS
Google Scholar
Williams, J. N. et al. Using species distribution models to predict new occurrences for rare plants. Divers. Distrib. 15, 565–576 (2009).Article
Google Scholar
Graham, C. H. et al. The influence of spatial errors in species occurrence data used in distribution models. J. Appl. Ecol. 45, 239–247 (2008).Article
Google Scholar
Elith, J. et al. Novel methods improve prediction of species’ distributions from occurrence data. Ecography 29, 129–151 (2006).Article
Google Scholar
Mi, C., Huettmann, F., Guo, Y., Han, X. & Wen, L. Why choose Random Forest to predict rare species distribution with few samples in large undersampled areas? Three Asian crane species models provide supporting evidence. Peerj 5, e2849 (2017).Article
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Drake, J. M., Randin, C. & Guisan, A. Modelling ecological niches with support vector machines. J. Appl. Ecol. 43, 424–432 (2006).Article
Google Scholar
Allouche, O., Tsoar, A. & Kadmon, R. Assessing the accuracy of species distribution models: prevalence, kappa and the true skill statistic (TSS). J. Appl. Ecol. 43, 1223–1232 (2006).Article
Google Scholar
McPherson, J., Jetz, W. & Rogers, D. J. The effects of species’ range sizes on the accuracy of distribution models: ecological phenomenon or statistical artefact? J. Appl. Ecol. 41, 811–823 (2004).Article
Google Scholar
Wang, B. et al. Australian wheat production expected to decrease by the late 21st century. Glob. Change Biol. 24, 2403–2415 (2017).Article
ADS
Google Scholar
Gallardo, B. et al. Protected areas offer refuge from invasive species spreading under climate change. Glob. Change Biol. 23, 5331–5343 (2017).Article
ADS
Google Scholar
Thuiller, W., Lafourcade, B., Engler, R. & Araújo, M. B. BIOMOD – a platform for ensemble forecasting of species distributions. Ecography 32, 369–373 (2009).Article
Google Scholar
UNEP-WCMC, I. and. The world database on protected areas (WDPA). https://www.protectedplanet.net/en#4_43.25_111_0 (2014).Asamoah, E. F., Beaumont, L. J. & Maina, J. M. Climate and land-use changes reduce the benefits of terrestrial protected areas. Nat. Clim. Change 11, 1105–1110 (2021).Article
ADS
Google Scholar
Brennan, A. et al. Functional connectivity of the world’s protected areas. Science 376, 1101–1104 (2022).You, Z. et al. Pitfall of big databases. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115, 201813323 (2018).Article
Google Scholar
Nelson, A. & Chomitz, K. M. Effectiveness of strict vs. multiple use protected areas in reducing tropical forest fires: a global analysis using matching methods. PLoS ONE 6, e22722 (2011).Article
ADS
CAS
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Albuquerque, F. & Beier, P. Rarity-weighted richness: a simple and reliable alternative to integer programming and heuristic algorithms for minimum set and maximum coverage problems in conservation planning. PLoS ONE 10, e0119905 (2015).Article
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Tang, C. Q. et al. Identifying long-term stable refugia for relict plant species in East Asia. Nat. Commun. 9, 4488 (2018).Article
ADS
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Kier, G. & Barthlott, W. Measuring and mapping endemism and species richness: a new methodological approach and its application on the flora of Africa. Biodivers. Conserv 10, 1513–1529 (2001).Article
Google Scholar
Albuquerque, F. & Gregory, A. The geography of hotspots of rarity-weighted richness of birds and their coverage by Natura 2000. PLoS ONE 12, e0174179 (2017).Article
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Jennings, M. D. Gap analysis: concepts, methods, and recent results. Landsc. Ecol. 15, 5–20 (2000).Article
Google Scholar
Romero‐Muñoz, A. et al. Increasing synergistic effects of habitat destruction and hunting on mammals over three decades in the Gran Chaco. Ecography 43, 954–966 (2020).Article
Google Scholar
Brooks, T. M. et al. Global biodiversity conservation priorities. Science 313, 58–61 (2006).Article
ADS
CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar More
Authors and AffiliationsCenter for Evolutionary Hologenomics, Globe Institute, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, DenmarkMorten T. Limborg & Jacob A. RasmussenSanger Institute, Wellcome Trust Genome Campus, Hinxton, UKPhysilia Y. S. ChuaAuthorsMorten T. LimborgPhysilia Y. S. ChuaJacob A. RasmussenCorresponding authorsCorrespondence to
Morten T. Limborg or Physilia Y. S. Chua. More
Donia, M. S. & Fischbach, M. A. Small molecules from the human microbiota. Science 349, 1254766 (2015).Koh, A., De Vadder, F., Kovatcheva-Datchary, P. & Bäckhed, F. From dietary fiber to host physiology: short-chain fatty acids as key bacterial metabolites. Cell 165, 1332–1345 (2016).Article
Google Scholar
Koppel, N., Rekdal, V. M. & Balskus, E. P. Chemical transformation of xenobiotics by the human gut microbiota. Science 356, eaag2770 (2017).Myhrstad, M. C., Tunsjø, H., Charnock, C. & Telle-Hansen, V. H. Dietary fiber, gut microbiota, and metabolic regulation—current status in human randomized trials. Nutrients 12, 859 (2020).Article
Google Scholar
Lin, R., Liu, W., Piao, M. & Zhu, H. A review of the relationship between the gut microbiota and amino acid metabolism. Amino Acids 49, 2083–2090 (2017).Article
Google Scholar
Tyson, G. W. et al. Community structure and metabolism through reconstruction of microbial genomes from the environment. Nature 428, 37–43 (2004).Article
Google Scholar
Flint, H. J., Scott, K. P., Louis, P. & Duncan, S. H. The role of the gut microbiota in nutrition and health. Nat. Rev. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 9, 577–589 (2012).Article
Google Scholar
Lloyd-Price, J. et al. Multi-omics of the gut microbial ecosystem in inflammatory bowel diseases. Nature 569, 655–662 (2019).Article
Google Scholar
Yang, Q. et al. Metabolomics biotechnology, applications, and future trends: a systematic review. RSC Adv. 9, 37245–37257 (2019).Article
Google Scholar
Castelli, F. A. et al. Metabolomics for personalized medicine: the input of analytical chemistry from biomarker discovery to point-of-care tests. Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 414, 759–789 (2022).Article
Google Scholar
Dias-Audibert, F. L. et al. Combining machine learning and metabolomics to identify weight gain biomarkers. Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol. 8, 6 (2020).Article
Google Scholar
Zheng, C., Zhang, S., Ragg, S., Raftery, D. & Vitek, O. Identification and quantification of metabolites in 1H NMR spectra by Bayesian model selection. Bioinformatics 27, 1637–1644 (2011).Article
Google Scholar
Information Resources Management Association. Bioinformatics: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools, and Applications (IGI Global, 2013).Johnson, C. H. & Gonzalez, F. J. Challenges and opportunities of metabolomics. J. Cell. Physiol. 227, 2975–2981 (2012).Article
Google Scholar
Ayling, M., Clark, M. D. & Leggett, R. M. New approaches for metagenome assembly with short reads. Brief. Bioinform. 21, 584–594 (2020).Article
Google Scholar
Brumfield, K. D., Huq, A., Colwell, R. R., Olds, J. L. & Leddy, M. B. Microbial resolution of whole genome shotgun and 16S amplicon metagenomic sequencing using publicly available neon data. PLoS ONE 15, e0228899 (2020).Article
Google Scholar
Garza, D. R., van Verk, M. C., Huynen, M. A. & Dutilh, B. E. Towards predicting the environmental metabolome from metagenomics with a mechanistic model. Nat. Microbiol. 3, 456–460 (2018).Article
Google Scholar
Noecker, C. et al. Metabolic model-based integration of microbiome taxonomic and metabolomic profiles elucidates mechanistic links between ecological and metabolic variation. MSystems 1, e00013–15 (2016).Article
Google Scholar
Yin, X. et al. A comparative evaluation of tools to predict metabolite profiles from microbiome sequencing data. Front. Microbiol. 11, 3132 (2020).Article
Google Scholar
Kettle, H., Louis, P., Holtrop, G., Duncan, S. H. & Flint, H. J. Modelling the emergent dynamics and major metabolites of the human colonic microbiota. Environ. Microbiol. 17, 1615–1630 (2015).Article
Google Scholar
Quinn, R. A. et al. Niche partitioning of a pathogenic microbiome driven by chemical gradients. Sci. Adv. 4, eaau1908 (2018).Article
Google Scholar
Wang, T., Goyal, A., Dubinkina, V. & Maslov, S. Evidence for a multi-level trophic organization of the human gut microbiome. PLoS Comput. Biol. 15, e1007524 (2019).Article
Google Scholar
Goyal, A., Wang, T., Dubinkina, V. & Maslov, S. Ecology-guided prediction of cross-feeding interactions in the human gut microbiome. Nat. Commun. 12, 1335 (2021).Mallick, H. et al. Predictive metabolomic profiling of microbial communities using amplicon or metagenomic sequences. Nat. Commun. 10, 3136 (2019).Article
Google Scholar
Le, V., Quinn, T. P., Tran, T. & Venkatesh, S. Deep in the bowel: highly interpretable neural encoder–decoder networks predict gut metabolites from gut microbiome. BMC Genom. 21, 256 (2020).Reiman, D., Layden, B. T. & Dai, Y. MiMeNet: exploring microbiome–metabolome relationships using neural networks. PLoS Comput. Biol. 17, e1009021 (2021).Article
Google Scholar
Morton, J. T. et al. Learning representations of microbe–metabolite interactions. Nat. Methods 16, 1306–1314 (2019).Article
Google Scholar
Chen, R. T., Rubanova, Y., Bettencourt, J. & Duvenaud, D. Neural ordinary differential equations. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 31, 6572–6583 (NeurIPS, 2018).Lu, Y., Zhong, A., Li, Q. & Dong, B. Beyond finite layer neural networks: bridging deep architectures and numerical differential equations. In International Conference on Machine Learning 3276–3285 (PMLR, 2018).Qiu, C., Bendickson, A., Kalyanapu, J. & Yan, J. Accuracy and architecture studies of residual neural network solving ordinary differential equations. Preprint at arXiv https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2101.03583 (2021).Dutta, S., Rivera-Casillas, P. & Farthing, M. W. Neural ordinary differential equations for data-driven reduced order modeling of environmental hydrodynamics. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2104.13962 (2021).Marsland III, R. et al. Available energy fluxes drive a transition in the diversity, stability, and functional structure of microbial communities. PLoS Comput. Biol. 15, e1006793 (2019).Article
Google Scholar
Franzosa, E. A. et al. Gut microbiome structure and metabolic activity in inflammatory bowel disease. Nat. Microbiol. 4, 293–305 (2019).Article
Google Scholar
Swenson, T. L., Karaoz, U., Swenson, J. M., Bowen, B. P. & Northen, T. R. Linking soil biology and chemistry in biological soil crust using isolate exometabolomics. Nat. Commun. 9, 19 (2018).Article
Google Scholar
Litonjua, A. A. et al. Effect of prenatal supplementation with vitamin D on asthma or recurrent wheezing in offspring by age 3 years: the VDAART randomized clinical trial. JAMA 315, 362–370 (2016).Article
Google Scholar
Litonjua, A. A. et al. Six-year follow-up of a trial of antenatal vitamin D for asthma reduction. N. Engl. J. Med. 382, 525–533 (2020).Article
Google Scholar
Lee-Sarwar, K. A. et al. Integrative analysis of the intestinal metabolome of childhood asthma. J. Allergy Clin. Immunol. 144, 442–454 (2019).Article
Google Scholar
Lee-Sarwar, K. et al. Association of the gut microbiome and metabolome with wheeze frequency in childhood asthma. J. Allergy Clin. Immunol. 147, AB53 (2021).Article
Google Scholar
Harvard Willett Food Frequency Questionnaire (T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Department of Nutrition, Harvard Univ., 2015).Plan and Operation of the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 1988–94 (National Centre for Health Statistics, 1994).Nelson, K. M., Reiber, G. & Boyko, E. J. Diet and exercise among adults with type 2 diabetes: findings from the third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES III). Diabetes Care 25, 1722–1728 (2002).Article
Google Scholar
Marriott, B. P., Olsho, L., Hadden, L. & Connor, P. Intake of added sugars and selected nutrients in the United States, National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 2003-2006. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 50, 228–258 (2010).Article
Google Scholar
Moshfegh, A. Food and Nutrient Database for Dietary Studies (US Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Food Surveys Research Group, 2022); http://www.ars.usda.gov/nea/bhnrc/fsrgRidlon, J. M., Kang, D.-J. & Hylemon, P. B. Bile salt biotransformations by human intestinal bacteria. J. Lipid Res. 47, 241–259 (2006).Article
Google Scholar
Bachmann, V. et al. Bile salts modulate the mucin-activated type VI secretion system of pandemic Vibrio cholerae. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 9, e0004031 (2015).Article
Google Scholar
Ramírez-Pérez, O., Cruz-Ramón, V., Chinchilla-López, P. & Méndez-Sánchez, N. The role of the gut microbiota in bile acid metabolism. Ann. Hepatol. 16, 21–26 (2018).Article
Google Scholar
Jia, W., Xie, G. & Jia, W. Bile acid-microbiota crosstalk in gastrointestinal inflammation and carcinogenesis. Nat. Rev. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 15, 111–128 (2018).Article
Google Scholar
Heinken, A. et al. Systematic assessment of secondary bile acid metabolism in gut microbes reveals distinct metabolic capabilities in inflammatory bowel disease. Microbiome 7, 75 (2019).Duboc, H. et al. Connecting dysbiosis, bile-acid dysmetabolism and gut inflammation in inflammatory bowel diseases. Gut 62, 531–539 (2013).Article
Google Scholar
Thomas, J. P., Modos, D., Rushbrook, S. M., Powell, N. & Korcsmaros, T. The emerging role of bile acids in the pathogenesis of inflammatory bowel disease. Front. Immunol. 13, 246 (2022).Kristal, A. R., Peters, U. & Potter, J. D. Is it time to abandon the food frequency questionnaire? Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev. 14, 2826–2828 (2005).Article
Google Scholar
Scalbert, A. et al. The food metabolome: a window over dietary exposure. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 99, 1286–1308 (2014).Article
Google Scholar
Bolyen, E. et al. Reproducible, interactive, scalable and extensible microbiome data science using QIIME 2. Nat. Biotechnol. 37, 852–857 (2019).Article
Google Scholar
Callahan, B. J. et al. DADA: high-resolution sample inference from Illumina amplicon data. Nat. Methods 13, 581–583 (2016).Article
Google Scholar
Evans, A. M. et al. High resolution mass spectrometry improves data quantity and quality as compared to unit mass resolution mass spectrometry in high-throughput profiling metabolomics. Metabolomics 4, 1 (2014).
Google Scholar
Blum, R. E. et al. Validation of a food frequency questionnaire in Native American and Caucasian children 1 to 5 years of age. Matern. Child Health J. 3, 167–172 (1999).Article
Google Scholar
Kingma, D. P. & Ba, J. Adam: a method for stochastic optimization. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1412.6980 (2014).Wang, T. wt1005203/mnode: initial release. Zenodo https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7602940 (2023). More
