Philippa Kaur

Crop dataCrop area (in hectare, ha, for sown areas) and production (in kg) statistics on departmental level from 1900 until 1988 were collected from books of national agricultural statistics (‘Statistique agricole annuelle’ or ‘Annuaire de statistique agricole’) compiled by the French Ministry of Agriculture; detailed references are provided in the supplementary information. Numbers were manually digitized from photocopied versions of the original paper documents. Data from 1989 to 2018 were derived from digital statistics from the Agreste database (‘Statistique agricole annuelle’ compiled by the Service de la Statistique et de la Prospective (SSP), Secrétariat Général du Ministère de l’Agriculture, de l’Agroalimentaire et de la Forêt (MAAF), France); details are provided in the supplementary information. Yields were calculated from total production and sown area for each department to avoid apparently often incorrect yield values printed in the old statistics books. Yields are given in kilogram per hectare (kg/ha, for sown area) for dry mass with 10–16% moisture content, depending on the crop.Data are available for ten crops: soft wheat (spring and winter separately), durum wheat, maize, oats (spring and winter), rapeseed (spring and winter), barley (spring and winter), potatoes, sugarbeet, sunflower and wine. The split into spring and winter crops eventually results in 18 distinct crop-cultivar types. Time frames with available data and the correspondence between French and English names are provided in Table 1.Table 1 Data set description for yields on department level.Full size tableThe shapes of French departments have changed over time. We use the 96 mainland (Metropolitan France) departments in their current form and subsume historical values to modern departments as follows. Corsica was one single department until 1975 but then split into Corse-du-Sud and Haute-Corse. Data for Corsica until 1975 were split equally (area, production) or copied (yield) to both new departments. Seine and Seine-et-Oise were two departments until 1967, but then subdivided into seven new departments on 1 January 1968. To account for this, we consider the values of the seven new departments (Essonne, Hauts-de-Seine, Paris, Seine-Saint-Denis, Val-de-Marne, Val-d’Oise, Yvelines) only from 1968 on and unite the two old departments into one counter-factual (“Seine_SeineOise” in the data tables) until 1967.Multiple cropping per year within this set of crops is accounted for by separate area data, but is practically nonexistent in France6.Quality filtersSome yield values had to be considered as outliers, also after checking for digitizing errors. There were four criteria for defining an outlier. First, absolute yield values larger than a physiologically currently unreachable threshold were removed; threshold values were 15 t/ha for barley and durum wheat, 200 t/ha for sugarbeet and potatoes, 20 t/ha for maize, oats and wheat, 10 t/ha for rape and sunflower and 200 hl/ha for wine. These thresholds were chosen to eliminate visually obvious outliers likely due to mismatches between area and production records. The values are set slightly above current maximum attained yields, thus remaining permissive and removing only obvious errors in this first step. Additionally, all yield values for winter rape in 1944, spring rape in 1968 and spring barley in 1980 were removed due to wrongly reported values in the yearbooks. This first step removed in total 167 yield data points. Second, the top 1% of yield values across all departments per decade were removed. Third, values above or below the mean +/− four times the standard deviation of each crop-department time series (for yield, area and production separately) were removed. Fourth, and finally, a similar variance filter as in the third step was applied within each decade of a single time series, filtering values above or below decadal mean +/− two (for yield) or three (area, production) decadal standard deviations. The latter three filters removed, on average, 3.6% of the yield and 0.2% of the area or production data, respectively (Table 1). There were, as a median, 43 yield outliers per department (out of 1,260 data points on average), with a range of 4 (department Hauts de Seine) and 255 (Nord) and an interquartile range of 35–50 outliers. Outliers were masked as missing values to avoid introducing a bias from any correction. In the accompanying data sets we provide two version of the full data set, one without any corrections (“RAW”) and one where the filters described above have been applied (“FILTERED”).ValidationNationally aggregated area, production and yield data from our data set were validated with national data from 1961 to 2018 provided by the FAO (http://faostat3.fao.org/home/E). Area and production data for crops with separate spring and winter data were summed on department level to test agreement with area and production data digitized for the ‘total’ crop. More

1.Arora, V. K. & Boer, G. J. A parameterization of leaf phenology for the terrestrial ecosystem component of climate models. Glob. Change Biol. 11, 39–59 (2005).
Google Scholar 
2.Richardson, A. D. et al. Terrestrial biosphere models need better representation of vegetation phenology: results from the North American Carbon Program Site Synthesis. Glob. Change Biol. 18, 566–584 (2012).
Google Scholar 
3.Peñuelas, J., Rutishauser, T. & Filella, I. Phenology feedbacks on climate change. Science 324, 887–888 (2009).
Google Scholar 
4.Richardson, A. D. et al. Influence of spring and autumn phenological transitions on forest ecosystem productivity. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 365, 3227–3246 (2010).
Google Scholar 
5.Diez, J. M. et al. Forecasting phenology: from species variability to community patterns. Ecol. Lett. 15, 545–553 (2012).
Google Scholar 
6.Hegland, S. J., Nielsen, A., Lazaro, A., Bjerknes, A. L. & Totland, O. How does climate warming affect plant-pollinator interactions? Ecol. Lett. 12, 184–195 (2009).
Google Scholar 
7.Fu, Y. H. et al. Declining global warming effects on the phenology of spring leaf unfolding. Nature 526, 104–107 (2015).CAS 

Google Scholar 
8.Zhang, H., Yuan, W., Liu, S. & Dong, W. Divergent responses of leaf phenology to changing temperature among plant species and geographical regions. Ecosphere 6, art250 (2015).
Google Scholar 
9.Zhang, G., Zhang, Y., Dong, J. & Xiao, X. Green-up dates in the Tibetan Plateau have continuously advanced from 1982 to 2011. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110, 4309–4314 (2013).CAS 

Google Scholar 
10.Menzel, A. et al. European phenological response to climate change matches the warming pattern. Glob. Change Biol. 12, 1969–1976 (2006).
Google Scholar 
11.Cleland, E. E., Chuine, I., Menzel, A., Mooney, H. A. & Schwartz, M. D. Shifting plant phenology in response to global change. Trends Ecol. Evol. 22, 357–365 (2007).
Google Scholar 
12.Menzel, A., Sparks, T. H., Estrella, N. & Roy, D. B. Altered geographic and temporal variability in phenology in response to climate change. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 15, 498–504 (2006).
Google Scholar 
13.Zhang, X., Tarpley, D. & Sullivan, J. T. Diverse responses of vegetation phenology to a warming climate. Geophys. Res. Lett. https://doi.org/10.1029/2007gl031447 (2007).14.Fitter, A. H. & Fitter, R. S. Rapid changes in flowering time in British plants. Science 296, 1689–1691 (2002).CAS 

Google Scholar 
15.Primack, R. B. et al. Spatial and interspecific variability in phenological responses to warming temperatures. Biol. Conserv. 142, 2569–2577 (2009).
Google Scholar 
16.Cleland, E. E., Chiariello, N. R., Loarie, S. R., Mooney, H. A. & Field, C. B. Diverse responses of phenology to global changes in a grassland ecosystem. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 103, 13740–13744 (2006).CAS 

Google Scholar 
17.Wang, H., Dai, J., Zheng, J. & Ge, Q. Temperature sensitivity of plant phenology in temperate and subtropical regions of China from 1850 to 2009. Int. J. Climatol. 35, 913–922 (2015).
Google Scholar 
18.Chuine, I. M., Morin, X. & Bugmann, H. Warming, photoperiods, and tree phenology. Science 329, 277–278 (2010).
Google Scholar 
19.Chuine, I. A unified model for budburst of trees. J. Theor. Biol. 207, 337–347 (2000).CAS 

Google Scholar 
20.Murray, M., Cannell, M. G. R. & Smith, R. I. Date of budburst of fifteen tree species in Britain following climatic warming. J. Appl. Ecol. 26, 693–700 (1989).
Google Scholar 
21.Man, R., Lu, P. & Dang, Q. L. Insufficient chilling effects vary among boreal tree species and chilling duration. Front. Plant Sci. 8, 1354 (2017).
Google Scholar 
22.Cannell, M. G. R. & Smith, R. I. L. Thermal time, chill days and prediction of budburst in Picea sitchensis. J. Appl. Ecol. 20, 951–963 (1983).
Google Scholar 
23.Fu, Y. H. et al. Increased heat requirement for leaf flushing in temperate woody species over 1980-2012: effects of chilling, precipitation and insolation. Glob. Change Biol. 21, 2687–2697 (2015).
Google Scholar 
24.Zhang, H., Liu, S., Regnier, P. & Yuan, W. New insights on plant phenological response to temperature revealed from long-term widespread observations in China. Glob. Change Biol. 24, 2066–2078 (2018).
Google Scholar 
25.Yu, H., Luedeling, E. & Xu, J. Winter and spring warming result in delayed spring phenology on the Tibetan Plateau. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 107, 22151–22156 (2010).CAS 

Google Scholar 
26.Asse, D. et al. Warmer winters reduce the advance of tree spring phenology induced by warmer springs in the Alps. Agric. For. Meteorol. 252, 220–230 (2018).
Google Scholar 
27.Ettinger, A. K. et al. Winter temperatures predominate in spring phenological responses to warming. Nat. Clim. Change 10, 1137–1142 (2020).
Google Scholar 
28.Chuine, I. & Régnière, J. Process-based models of phenology for plants and animals. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 48, 159–182 (2017).
Google Scholar 
29.Caffarra, A., Donnelly, A., Chuine, I. & Jones, M. B. Modelling the timing of Betula pubescens budburst. I. Temperature and photoperiod: a conceptual model. Clim. Res. 46, 147–157 (2011).
Google Scholar 
30.Luterbacher, J., Dietrich, D., Xoplaki, E., Grosjean, M. & Wanner, H. European seasonal and annual temperature variability, trends, and extremes since 1500. Science 303, 1499–1503 (2004).CAS 

Google Scholar 
31.Ciais, P. et al. in Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (eds Stocker, T. F. et al.) (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2013).32.Fu, Y. H. et al. Daylength helps temperate deciduous trees to leaf-out at the optimal time. Glob. Change Biol. 25, 2410–2418 (2019).
Google Scholar 
33.Wolkovich, E. M. et al. A simple explanation for declining temperature sensitivity with warming. Glob. Change Biol. 27, 4947–4949 (2021).CAS 

Google Scholar 
34.Templ, B. et al. Pan European Phenological database (PEP725): a single point of access for European data. Int. J. Biometeorol. 62, 1109–1113 (2018).
Google Scholar 
35.Kramer, K. Selecting a model to predict the onset of growth of Fagus sylvatica. J. Appl. Ecol. 31, 172–181 (1994).
Google Scholar 
36.Chuine, I., Cour, P. & Rousseau, D.-D. Selecting models to predict the timing of flowering of temperate trees: implications for tree phenology modelling. Plant Cell Environ. 22, 1–13 (1999).37.Savas, R. Investigations on the annual cycle of development of forest trees. II. Autumn dormancy and winter dormancy https://eurekamag.com/research/000/414/000414639.php (1974).38.Hänninen, H. Modelling bud dormancy release in trees from cool and temperate regions. Acta. Fenn. 14, 499–454 (1990).
Google Scholar 
39.Harrington, C. A., Gould, P. J. & St. Clair, J. B. Modeling the effects of winter environment on dormancy release of Douglas-fir. Ecol. Manag. 259, 798–808 (2010).
Google Scholar 
40.Zhang, H., Yuan, W., Liu, S., Dong, W. & Fu, Y. Sensitivity of flowering phenology to changing temperature in China. J. Geophys. Res. Biogeosci. 120, 1658–1665 (2015).
Google Scholar 
41.Richardson, A. D. et al. Influence of spring phenology on seasonal and annual carbon balance in two contrasting New England forests. Tree Physiol. 29, 321–331 (2009).CAS 

Google Scholar 
42.Piao, S. et al. Plant phenology and global climate change: current progresses and challenges. Glob. Change Biol. 25, 1922–1940 (2019).
Google Scholar 
43.Körner, C. & Basler, D. Phenology under global warming. Science 327, 1461–1462 (2010).
Google Scholar 
44.Zohner, C. M. & Renner, S. S. Common garden comparison of the leaf-out phenology of woody species from different native climates, combined with herbarium records, forecasts long-term change. Ecol. Lett. 17, 1016–1025 (2014).
Google Scholar 
45.Vitasse, Y. & Basler, D. What role for photoperiod in the bud burst phenology of European beech. Eur. J. For. Res. 132, 1–8 (2012).
Google Scholar 
46.Lenz, A., Hoch, G., Körner, C. & Vitasse, Y. Convergence of leaf-out towards minimum risk of freezing damage in temperate trees. Funct. Ecol. 30, 1480–1490 (2016).
Google Scholar 
47.Wang, Y. et al. Forest controls spring phenology of juvenile Smith fir along elevational gradients on the southeastern Tibetan Plateau. Int. J. Biometeorol. 63, 963–972 (2019).
Google Scholar 
48.Marquis, B., Bergeron, Y., Simard, M. & Tremblay, F. Probability of sping frosts, not growing degree-days, drives onset of spruce bud burst in plantations at the boreal-temperate forest ecotone. Front. Plant Sci. 11, 1031 (2020).
Google Scholar 
49.Shen, M., Piao, S., Cong, N., Zhang, G. & Jassens, I. A. Precipitation impacts on vegetation spring phenology on the Tiberan Plateau. Glob. Change Biol. 21, 3647–3656 (2015).
Google Scholar 
50.Liu et al. Temperature, precipitation, and insolation effects on autumn vegetation phenology in temperate China. Glob. Change Biol. 22, 644–655 (2016).CAS 

Google Scholar 
51.Minder, J. R., Mote, P. W. & Lundquist, J. D. Surface temperature lapse rates over complex terrain: lessons from the Cascade Mountains. J. Geophys. Res. 115, D14122 (2010).
Google Scholar 
52.Navarro-Serrano et al. Elevation effects on air temperature in a topographically complex mountain valley in the Spanish Pyrenees. Atmosphere 11, 656 (2020).
Google Scholar 
53.Chen, L. et al. Leaf senescence exhibits stronger climatic responses during warm than during cold autumns. Nat. Clim. Change 10, 777–780 (2020).CAS 

Google Scholar 
54.Leys, C., Ley, C., Klein, O., Bernard, P. & Licata, L. Detecting outliers: do not use standard deviation around the mean, use absolute deviation around the median. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 49, 764–766 (2013).
Google Scholar 
55.Beer, C. et al. Harmonized European long-term climate data for assessing the effect of changing temporal variability on land–atmosphere CO2 fluxes. J. Clim. 27, 4815–4834 (2014).
Google Scholar 
56.Olsson, C. & Jönsson, A. M. Process-based models not always better than empirical models for simulating budburst of Norway spruce and birch in Europe. Glob. Change Biol. 20, 3492–3507 (2014).
Google Scholar 
57.Duan, Q., Sorooshian, S. & Gupta, V. K. Optimal use of the SCE-UA global optimization method for calibrating watershed models. J. Hydrol. 158, 265–284 (1994).
Google Scholar 
58.Bluemel, K. & Chmielewski, F. Shortcomings of classical phenological forcing models and a way to overcome them. Agric. For. Meteorol. 164, 10–19 (2012).
Google Scholar  More

1.Martiny JBH, Bohannan BJM, Brown JH, Colwell RK, Fuhrman JA, Green JL, et al. Microbial biogeography: putting microorganisms on the map. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2006;4:102–12.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
2.Caswell H, Cohen JE. Disturbance, interspecific interaction and diversity in metapopulations. Biol J Linn Soc. 1991;42:193–218.
Google Scholar 
3.Tolker-Nielsen T, Molin S. Spatial organization of microbial biofilm communities. Microb Ecol. 2000;40:75–84.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
4.Yanni D, Márquez-Zacarías P, Yunker PJ, Ratcliff WC. Drivers of spatial structure in social microbial communities. Curr Biol. 2019;29:R545–50.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
5.Ho A, Angel R, Veraart AJ, Daebeler A, Jia Z, Kim SY, et al. Biotic interactions in microbial communities as modulators of biogeochemical processes: methanotrophy as a model system. Front Microbiol. 2016;7:1–11.
Google Scholar 
6.Falkowski PG, Fenchel T, Delong EF. The microbial engines that drive earth’s biogeochemical cycles. Science. 2008;320:1034–9.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
7.Overmann J, van Gemerden H. Microbial interactions involving sulfur bacteria: Implications for the ecology and evolution of bacterial communities. FEMS Microbiol Rev. 2000;24:591–9.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
8.García-Bayona L, Comstock LE. Bacterial antagonism in host-associated microbial communities. Science. 2018;361:1–11.
Google Scholar 
9.Coyte KZ, Schluter J, Foster KR. The ecology of the microbiome: Networks, competition, and stability. Science. 2015;350:663–6.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
10.Wang X, Li X, Ling J. Streptococcus gordonii LuxS/autoinducer-2 quorum-sensing system modulates the dual-species biofilm formation with Streptococcus mutans. J Basic Microbiol. 2017;57:605–16.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
11.Hotterbeekx A, Kumar-Singh S, Goossens H, Malhotra-Kumar S. In vivo and In vitro interactions between Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Staphylococcus spp. Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 2017;7:1–13.
Google Scholar 
12.Dal Co A, van Vliet S, Kiviet DJ, Schlegel S, Ackermann M. Short-range interactions govern the dynamics and functions of microbial communities. Nat Ecol Evol. 2020;4:366–75. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-019-1080-2.Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
13.Justice NB, Sczesnak A, Hazen TC, Arkin AP. Environmental selection, dispersal, and organism interactions shape community assembly in high-throughput enrichment culturing. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2017;83:1–16.
Google Scholar 
14.Hilker M. New synthesis: parallels between biodiversity and chemodiversity. J Chem Ecol. 2014;40:225–6.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
15.Raguso R, Agrawal A, Douglas A, Jander G, Kessler A, Poveda K, et al. The raison d’être of chemical ecology. Ecology. 2015;96:617–30.PubMed 

Google Scholar 
16.Tilman D. Competition and biodiversity in spatially structured habitats. Ecology. 1994;75:2–16.
Google Scholar 
17.Geyrhofer L, Brenner N. Coexistence and cooperation in structured habitats. BMC Ecol. 2020;20:1–15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12898-020-00281-y.Article 

Google Scholar 
18.Wakano JY, Nowak MA, Hauert C. Spatial dynamics of ecological public goods. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2009;106:7910–4.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
19.Nemergut DR, Schmidt SK, Fukami T, O’Neill SP, Bilinski TM, Stanish LF, et al. Patterns and processes of microbial community assembly. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev. 2013;77:342–56.PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
20.Lowery NV, Ursell T. Structured environments fundamentally alter dynamics and stability of ecological communities. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2019;116:379–88.CAS 

Google Scholar 
21.Lee JZ, Craig Everroad R, Karaoz U, Detweiler AM, Pett-Ridge J, Weber PK, et al. Metagenomics reveals niche partitioning within the phototrophic zone of a microbial mat. PLoS ONE. 2018;13:1–19.
Google Scholar 
22.Quinn RA, Comstock W, Zhang T, Morton JT, da Silva R, Tran A, et al. Niche partitioning of a pathogenic microbiome driven by chemical gradients. Sci Adv. 2018;4:1–12.
Google Scholar 
23.Fenchel T, Finlay B. Oxygen and the spatial structure of microbial communities. Biol Rev. 2008;83:553–69.PubMed 

Google Scholar 
24.Esteban DJ, Hysa B, Bartow-McKenney C. Temporal and spatial distribution of the microbial community of winogradsky columns. PLoS ONE. 2015;10:1–21.
Google Scholar 
25.Azam F. Microbial control of oceanic carbon flux: The plot thickens. Science. 1998;280:694–6.CAS 

Google Scholar 
26.McNally L, Brown SP. Building the microbiome in health and disease: niche construction and social conflict in bacteria. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci. 2015;370:1–8.
Google Scholar 
27.Schreiber F, Ackermann M. Environmental drivers of metabolic heterogeneity in clonal microbial populations. Curr Opin Biotechnol. 2020;62:202–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copbio.2019.11.018.CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
28.Lopez D, Vlamakis H, Kolter R. Biofilms. Cold Spring Harbor Perspectives in Biology. 2010;2:1–11.
Google Scholar 
29.Picketts STA, Cadenasso ML. Landscape ecology: spatial heterogeneity in ecological systems. NCASI Techn Bull. 1999;2:420.
Google Scholar 
30.Chao L, Levin BR. Structured habitats and the evolution of anticompetitor toxins in bacteria. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1981;78:6324–8.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
31.Rainey PB, Travisano M. Adaptive radiation in a heterogeneous environment. Nature. 1998;394:69–72.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
32.Cardinale BJ. Biodiversity improves water quality through niche partitioning. Nature. 2011;472:86–91.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
33.Loreau M, Naeem S, Inchausti P, Bengtsson J, Grime JP, Hector A, et al. Ecology: biodiversity and ecosystem functioning: current knowledge and future challenges. Science. 2001;294:804–8.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
34.Wellborn GA, Langerhans RB. Ecological opportunity and the adaptive diversification of lineages. Ecol Evol. 2015;5:176–95.PubMed 

Google Scholar 
35.Czárán TL, Hoekstra RF. Killer-sensitive coexistence in metapopulations of micro-organisms. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci. 2003;270:1373–8.
Google Scholar 
36.West SA, Griffin AS, Gardner A, Diggle SP. Social evolution theory for microorganisms. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2006;4:597–607.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
37.Wagner M, Loy A, Nogueira R, Purkhold U, Lee N, Daims H. Microbial community composition and function in wastewater treatment plants. Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek. 2002;81:665–80.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
38.Johnson DR, Lee TK, Park J, Fenner K, Helbling DE. The functional and taxonomic richness of wastewater treatment plant microbial communities are associated with each other and with ambient nitrogen and carbon availability. Environ Microbiol. 2015;17:4851–60.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
39.Liébana R, Arregui L, Santos A, Murciano A, Marquina D, Serrano S. Unravelling the interactions among microbial populations found in activated sludge during biofilm formation. FEMS Microbiol Ecol. 2016;92:1–13.
Google Scholar 
40.Reasoner DJ, Geldreich EE. A new medium for the enumeration and subculture of bacteria from potable water. Appl Environ Microbiol. 1985;49:1–7.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
41.Parada AE, Needham DM, Fuhrman JA. Every base matters: assessing small subunit rRNA primers for marine microbiomes with mock communities, time series and global field samples. Environ Microbiol. 2015;18:1403–14.PubMed 

Google Scholar 
42.Junkins EN, Stevenson BS. Using plate-wash PCR and high-throughput sequencing to measure cultivated diversity for natural product discovery efforts. Front Microbiol. 2021;12:1–14.
Google Scholar 
43.Martin M. Cutadapt removes adapter sequences from high-throughput sequencing reads. EMBnet J. 2011;17:10–12.
Google Scholar 
44.Callahan BJ, McMurdie PJ, Rosen MJ, Han AW, Johnson AJA, Holmes SP. DADA2: high-resolution sample inference from Illumina amplicon data. Nat Methods. 2016;13:581–3.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
45.Quast C, Pruesse E, Yilmaz P, Gerken J, Schweer T, Yarza P, et al. The SILVA ribosomal RNA gene database project: improved data processing and web-based tools. Nucleic Acids Res. 2013;41:590–6.
Google Scholar 
46.Yilmaz P, Parfrey LW, Yarza P, Gerken J, Pruesse E, Quast C, et al. The SILVA and “all-species Living Tree Project (LTP)” taxonomic frameworks. Nucleic Acids Res. 2014;42:643–8.
Google Scholar 
47.Davis NM, Proctor DM, Holmes SP, Relman DA, Callahan BJ. Simple statistical identification and removal of contaminant sequences in marker-gene and metagenomics data. Microbiome. 2018;6:1–14.
Google Scholar 
48.Wright ES. DECIPHER: Harnessing local sequence context to improve protein multiple sequence alignment. BMC Bioinformatics. 2015;16:1–14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12859-015-0749-z.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
49.Wright ES. Using DECIPHER v2.0 to analyze big biological sequence data in R. R J. 2016;8:352–9.
Google Scholar 
50.Schliep KP. phangorn: phylogenetic analysis in R. Bioinformatics. 2011;27:592–3.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
51.McMurdie PJ, Holmes S. Phyloseq: an R package for reproducible interactive analysis and graphics of microbiome census data. PLoS ONE. 2013;8:1–11.
Google Scholar 
52.Willis A, Bunge J. Estimating diversity via frequency ratios. Biometrics. 2015;71:1042–9.PubMed 

Google Scholar 
53.Pielou EC. The measurement of diversity in different types of biological collections. J Theor Biol. 1966;13:131–44.
Google Scholar 
54.Levene H. Robust tests for equality of variances. In: Olkin I, editor. Contributions to probability and statistics: essays in honor of Harold Hotelling. Stanford University Press, Palo Alto, California, USA; 1960. p. 278–92.55.Fox J, Weisberg S. An R companion to applied regression. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2019.56.Lozupone C, Knight R. UniFrac: a new phylogenetic method for comparing microbial communities. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2005;71:8228–35.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
57.Oksanen J, Blanchet FG, Friendly M, Kindt R, Legendre P, McGlinn D, et al. vegan: community ecology package. R Package; 2019.58.Martin BD, Witten D, Willis AD. Modeling microbial abundances and dysbiosis with beta-binomial regression. Ann Appl Stat. 2020;14:94–115.PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
59.Chambers MC, MacLean B, Burke R, Amodei D, Ruderman DL, Neumann S, et al. A cross-platform toolkit for mass spectrometry and proteomics. Nat Biotechnol. 2012;30:918–20.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
60.Pluskal T, Castillo S, Villar-Briones A, Orešič M. MZmine 2: modular framework for processing, visualizing, and analyzing mass spectrometry-based molecular profile data. BMC Bioinformatics. 2010;11:1–11.61.Myers OD, Sumner SJ, Li S, Barne S, Du X. One step forward for reducing false positive and false negative compound identifications from mass spectrometry metabolomics data: new algorithms for constructing extracted ion chromatograms and detecting chromatographic peaks. Anal Chem. 2017;89:8696–703.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
62.Wang M, Carver JJ, Phelan VV, Sanchez LM, Garg N;, Peng Y, et al. Sharing and community curation of mass spectrometry data with GNPS. Nat Biotechnol. 2017;34:828–37.
Google Scholar 
63.Nothias LF, Petras D, Schmid R, Dührkop K, Rainer J, Sarvepalli A, et al. Feature-based molecular networking in the GNPS analysis environment. Nat Methods. 2020;17:905–8. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41592-020-0933-6.CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
64.Shannon P, Markiel A, Ozier O, Baliga NS, Wang JT, Ramage D, et al. Cytoscape: a software environment for integrated models. Genome Res. 2003;13:2498–504. http://ci.nii.ac.jp/naid/110001910481/.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
65.R Core Team. R: a language and environment for R Foundation for Statistical Computing. 2018. https://www.r-project.org/.66.Bates D, Mächler M, Bolker BM, Walker SC. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J Stat Softw. 2015;67:1–48.
Google Scholar 
67.Djoumbou Feunang Y, Eisner R, Knox C, Chepelev L, Hastings J, Owen G, et al. ClassyFire: automated chemical classification with a comprehensive, computable taxonomy. J Cheminform. 2016;8:1–20.
Google Scholar 
68.O’Brien J, Wright GD. An ecological perspective of microbial secondary metabolism. Curr Opin Biotechnol. 2011;22:552–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copbio.2011.03.010.CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
69.Thierbach S, Wienhold M, Fetzner S, Hennecke U. Synthesis and biological activity of methylated derivatives of the Pseudomonas metabolites HHQ, HQNO and PQS. Beilstein J Org Chem. 2019;15:187–93.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
70.Morales-Soto N, Dunham SJB, Baig NF, Ellis JF, Madukoma CS, Bohn PW, et al. Spatially dependent alkyl quinolone signaling responses to antibiotics in Pseudomonas aeruginosa swarms. J Biol Chem. 2018;293:9544–52.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
71.Heeb S, Fletcher MP, Chhabra SR, Diggle SP, Williams P, Cámara M. Quinolones: from antibiotics to autoinducers. FEMS Microbiol Rev. 2011;35:247–74.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
72.Grollman AP. Inhibitors of protein biosynthesis. II. Mode of action of anisomycin. J Biolog Chem. 1967;242:3226–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0021-9258(18)95953-3.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
73.Sobin BA, Tanner FW Jr. Anisomycin, a new anti-protozoan antibiotic. J Am Chem Soc. 1954;76:4053–4053.CAS 

Google Scholar 
74.Gross H, Stockwell VO, Henkels MD, Nowak-Thompson B, Loper JE, Gerwick WH. The genomisotopic approach: a systematic method to isolate products of orphan biosynthetic gene clusters. Chem Biol. 2007;14:53–63.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
75.Jang JY, Yang SY, Kim YC, Lee CW, Park MS, Kim JC, et al. Identification of orfamide A as an insecticidal metabolite produced by Pseudomonas protegens F6. J Agric Food Chem. 2013;61:6786–91.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
76.Ma Z, Geudens N, Kieu NP, Sinnaeve D, Ongena M, Martins JC, et al. Biosynthesis, chemical structure, and structure-activity relationship of orfamide lipopeptides produced by Pseudomonas protegens and related species. Front Microbiol. 2016;7:1–16.
Google Scholar 
77.Figueira V, Vaz-Moreira I, Silva M, Manaia CM. Diversity and antibiotic resistance of Aeromonas spp. in drinking and waste water treatment plants. Water Res. 2011;45:5599–611.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
78.Skwor T, Stringer S, Haggerty J, Johnson J, Duhr S, Johnson M, et al. Prevalence of potentially pathogenic antibiotic-resistant Aeromonas spp. in treated urban wastewater effluents versus recipient riverine populations: a 3-year comparative study. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2020;86:1–16.
Google Scholar 
79.Janda JM, Abbott SL. The genus Aeromonas: taxonomy, pathogenicity, and infection. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2010;23:35–73.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
80.Rema T, Lawrence JR, Dynes JJ, Hitchcock AP, Korber DR. Microscopic and spectroscopic analyses of chlorhexidine tolerance in Delftia acidovorans biofilms. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2014;58:5673–86.PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
81.Assanta MA, Roy D, Lemay MJ, Montpetit D. Attachment of Arcobacter butzleri, a new waterborne pathogen, to water distribution pipe surfaces. J Food Protect. 2002;65:1240–7.
Google Scholar 
82.Costerton JW, Stewart PS, Greenberg EP. Bacterial biofilms: a common cause of persistent infections. Science. 1999;284:1318–22.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
83.Harrison F, Paul J, Massey RC, Buckling A. Interspecific competition and siderophore-mediated cooperation in Pseudomonas aeruginosa. ISME J. 2008;2:49–55.PubMed 

Google Scholar 
84.Inglis RF, Roberts PG, Gardner A, Buckling A. Spite and the scale of competition in Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Am Nat. 2011;178:276–85.PubMed 

Google Scholar 
85.van der Meij A, Worsley SF, Hutchings MI, van Wezel GP. Chemical ecology of antibiotic production by Actinomycetes. FEMS Microbiol Rev. 2017;41:392–416.PubMed 

Google Scholar 
86.Traxler MF, Kolter R. Natural products in soil microbe interactions and evolution. Nat Prod Rep. 2015;32:956–70.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
87.Kinkel LL, Schlatter DC, Xiao K, Baines AD. Sympatric inhibition and niche differentiation suggest alternative coevolutionary trajectories among Streptomycetes. ISME J. 2014;8:249–56. https://doi.org/10.1038/ismej.2013.175. [Internet]Available fromCAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
88.Pacala SW, Levin SA. Biologically generated spatial pattern and the coexistence of competing species. In: Tilman D, Kareiva P, editors. Spatial ecology: the role of space in population dynamics and interspecific interactions; Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, USA; 1997.89.Zhou J, Ning D. Stochastic community assembly: does it matter in microbial ecology? Microbiol Mol Biol Rev. 2017;81:1–32.
Google Scholar 
90.Haig SJ, Quince C, Davies RL, Dorea CC, Collinsa G. The relationship between microbial community evenness and function in slow sand filters. mBio. 2015;6:1–12.
Google Scholar 
91.Wittebolle L, Marzorati M, Clement L, Balloi A, Daffonchio D, Heylen K, et al. Initial community evenness favours functionality under selective stress. Nature. 2009;458:623–6.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
92.Davies J, Ryan KS. Introducing the parvome: bioactive compounds in the microbial world. ACS Chem Biol. 2012;7:252–9.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
93.Bassler BL, Losick R. Bacterially speaking. Cell. 2006;125:237–46.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
94.Venturi V. Regulation of quorum sensing in Pseudomonas. FEMS Microbiol Rev. 2006;30:274–91.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
95.Granato ET, Meiller-Legrand TA, Foster KR. The evolution and ecology of bacterial warfare. Curr Biol. 2019;29:R521–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2019.04.024.CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
96.Estrela S, Brown SP. Community interactions and spatial structure shape selection on antibiotic resistant lineages. PLoS Comput Biol. 2018;14:1–21.CAS 

Google Scholar 
97.Hibbing ME, Fuqua C, Parsek MR, Peterson SB. Bacterial competition: surviving and thriving in the microbial jungle. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2010;8:15–25.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
98.Garcia-Garcera M, Rocha EPC. Community diversity and habitat structure shape the repertoire of extracellular proteins in bacteria. Nat Commun. 2020;11:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-14572-x.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar  More

1.Butchart, S. H. M. et al. Global biodiversity: indicators of recent declines. Science 328, 1164–1168 (2010).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
2.Buchanan, G. M., Butchart, S. H. M., Chandler, G. & Gregory, R. D. Assessment of national-level progress towards elements of the Aichi Biodiversity Targets. Ecol. Indic. 116, 106497 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
3.Butchart, S. H. M. et al. in Global Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Science–Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (eds Berkes, F. & Brooks, T. M.) Ch. 3 (IPBES Secretariat, 2019); https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.38320534.Maxwell, S. L. et al. Area-based conservation in the twenty-first century. Nature 586, 217–227 (2020).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
5.Locke, H. Nature needs half: a necessary and hopeful new agenda for protected areas. Nat. N. S. W. 58, 7–17 (2014).
Google Scholar 
6.Dinerstein, E. et al. An ecoregion-based approach to protecting half the terrestrial realm. Bioscience 67, 534–545 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
7.Dinerstein, E. et al. A global deal for nature: guiding principles, milestones, and targets. Sci. Adv. 5, eaaw2869 (2019).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
8.Mehrabi, Z., Ellis, E. C. & Ramankutty, N. The challenge of feeding the world while conserving half the planet. Nat. Sustain. 1, 409–412 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
9.Kok, M. T. J. et al. Assessing ambitious nature conservation strategies within a 2 degree warmer and food-secure world. Preprint at bioRxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.08.04.236489 (2020).10.Rosa, I. M. D. et al. Multiscale scenarios for nature futures. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 1, 1416–1419 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
11.Obermeister, N. Local knowledge, global ambitions: IPBES and the advent of multi-scale models and scenarios. Sustain. Sci. 14, 843–856 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
12.Pereira, L. M. et al. Developing multiscale and integrative nature–people scenarios using the Nature Futures Framework. People Nat. 2, 1172–1195 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
13.Rabin, S. S. et al. Impacts of future agricultural change on ecosystem service indicators. Earth Syst. Dynam. 11, 357–376 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
14.Springmann, M. et al. Global and regional health effects of future food production under climate change: a modelling study. Lancet 387, 1937–1946 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
15.Springmann, M. et al. Health and nutritional aspects of sustainable diet strategies and their association with environmental impacts: a global modelling analysis with country-level detail. Lancet Planet. Health 2, e451–e461 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
16.Dinerstein, E. et al. A “Global Safety Net” to reverse biodiversity loss and stabilize Earth’s climate. Sci. Adv. 6, eabb2824 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
17.Locke, H. et al. Three global conditions for biodiversity conservation and sustainable use: an implementation framework. Natl Sci. Rev. https://doi.org/10.1093/nsr/nwz136 (2019).18.Waldron, A. et al. Protecting 30% of the Planet for Nature: Costs, Benefits and Economic Implications (Campaign for Nature, 2020).19.Strassburg, B. B. N. et al. Global priority areas for ecosystem restoration. Nature 586, 724–729 (2020).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
20.O’Neill, B. C. et al. The roads ahead: narratives for Shared Socioeconomic Pathways describing world futures in the 21st century. Glob. Environ. Change 42, 169–180 (2015).21.Riahi, K. et al. The Shared Socioeconomic Pathways and their energy, land use, and greenhouse gas emissions implications: an overview. Glob. Environ. Change 42, 153–168 (2017).22.Tauli-Corpuz, V., Alcorn, J., Molnar, A., Healy, C. & Barrow, E. Cornered by PAs: adopting rights-based approaches to enable cost-effective conservation and climate action. World Dev. 130, 104923 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
23.Kashwan, P. V., Duffy, R., Massé, F., Asiyanbi, A. P. & Marijnen, E. From racialized neocolonial global conservation to an inclusive and regenerative conservation. Environ. Sci. Policy Sustain. Dev. 63, 4–19 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
24.The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2017: Building Resilience for Peace and Food Security (FAO, 2017).25.Schleicher, J. et al. Protecting half of the planet could directly affect over one billion people. Nat. Sustain. 2, 1094–1096 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
26.Allan, J. R. et al. The minimum land area requiring conservation attention to safeguard biodiversity. Preprint at bioRxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/839977 (2021).27.Brockington, D. & Wilkie, D. Protected areas and poverty. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 370, 20140271 (2015).28.Protected Planet Report 2020 (UNEP–WCMC and IUCN, 2021).29.Naidoo, R. et al. Evaluating the impacts of protected areas on human well-being across the developing world. Sci. Adv. 5, eaav3006 (2019).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
30.Dutta, A., Allan, J., Shimray, G., General, S. & Pact, A. I. P. RE: “A ‘Global Safety Net’ to reverse biodiversity loss and stabilize Earth’s climate”. Sci. Adv. 6, eabb2824 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
31.Simmons, B. A., Nolte, C. & McGowan, J. Tough questions for the “30 × 30” conservation agenda. Front. Ecol. Environ. 19, 322–323 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
32.Jung, M. et al. Areas of global importance for conserving terrestrial biodiversity, carbon and water. Nat. Ecol. Evol. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-021-01528-7 (2021).33.The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species Version 2019.2 (IUCN, 2019).34.The World Database of Key Biodiversity Areas (KBA Partnership, 2019); www.keybiodiversityareas.org35.Mogg, S., Fastre, C. & Visconti, P. Targeted expansion of protected areas to maximise the persistence of terrestrial mammals. Preprint at bioRxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/608992 (2019).36.Gurobi Optimizer Reference Manual (Gurobi Optimization, 2019).37.Hanson, J. O. et al. prioritizr: Systematic Conservation Prioritization in R. R package version 5.0.3 https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=prioritizr (2020).38.Hurtt, G., Chini, L., Frolking, S. & Sahajpal, R. Land-Use Harmonization (LUH2) (Global Ecology Laboratory, Univ. Maryland, 2017).39.Protected Planet: The World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA) (UNEP-WCMC and IUCN, accessed April 2019); www.protectedplanet.net40.Dellink, R., Chateau, J., Lanzi, E. & Magné, B. Long-term economic growth projections in the Shared Socioeconomic Pathways. Glob. Environ. Change 42, 200–214 (2017).41.Jones, B. & O’Neill, B. C. Spatially explicit global population scenarios consistent with the Shared Socioeconomic Pathways. Environ. Res. Lett. 11, 84003 (2016).42.van Vuuren, D. P. et al. The representative concentration pathways: an overview. Climatic Change 109, 5–31 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
43.Engström, K. et al. Assessing uncertainties in global cropland futures using a conditional probabilistic modelling framework. Earth Syst. Dynam. 7, 893–915 (2016).44.Alexander, P. et al. Drivers for global agricultural land use change: the nexus of diet, population, yield and bioenergy. Glob. Environ. Change 35, 138–147 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
45.Popp, A. et al. Land-use transition for bioenergy and climate stabilization: model comparison of drivers, impacts and interactions with other land use based mitigation options. Climatic Change 123, 495–509 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
46.GBD Results Tool (IHME, 2020); http://ghdx.healthdata.org/gbd-results-tool47.KC, S. & Lutz, W. The human core of the Shared Socioeconomic Pathways: population scenarios by age, sex and level of education for all countries to 2100. Glob. Environ. Change 42, 181–192 (2017). More

1.Gaston, K. J. Global patterns of biodiversity. Nature 405, 220–227 (2000).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
2.Friis, E. M., Crane, P. R. & Pedersen, K. R. Early Flowers and Angiosperm Evolution (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2011).3.Blomenkemper, P. et al. A hidden cradle of plant evolution in Permian tropical lowlands. Science 362, 1414–1416 (2018).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
4.Kenrick, P. & Crane, P. R. The Origin and Early Diversification of Land Plants: A Cladistic Study (Smithsonian Institution Scholarly Press, 1997).5.Puttick, M. N. et al. The interrelationships of land plants and the nature of the nature of the ancestral embryophyte. Curr. Biol. 28, 733–745 (2018).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
6.Morris, J. L. et al. The timescale of early land plant evolution. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115, 2274–2283 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
7.Wellman, C. H., Steemans, P. & Vecoli, M. in Early Palaeozoic Biogeography and Palaeogeography (eds Harper, D. & Servais, T.) Ch. 29 (Geological Society of London, 2014).8.Edwards, D. et al. Piecing together the eophytes—a new group of ancient plants containing cryptospores. New Phytol. 233, 1440–1455 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
9.Gray, J. The microfossil record of early land plants; advances in understanding of early terrestrialization, 1970–1984. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 309, 167–195 (1985).Article 

Google Scholar 
10.Wellman, C. H. Cryptospores from the type area for the Caradoc Series (Ordovician) in southern Britain. Palaeontology 55, 103–136 (1996).
Google Scholar 
11.Torsvik, T. H. & Cocks, L. R. M. Earth History and Palaeogeography (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2017).12.Harland, W. B. The Geology of Svalbard (Geological Society of London, 1997).13.Davies, N. S., Berry, C. M., Marshall, J. E. A., Wellman, C. H. & Lindemann, F.-J. The Devonian landscape factory: plant–sediment interactions in the Old Red Sandstone of Svalbard and the rise of vegetation as a biogeomorphic agent. J. Geol. Soc. Lond. https://doi.org/10.1144/jgs2020-225 (2021).14.Blieck, A., Goujet, D. & Janvier, P. The vertebrate stratigraphy of the Lower Devonian (Red Bay Group and Wood Bay Formation) of Spitsbergen. Mod. Geol. 11, 197–217 (1987).
Google Scholar 
15.Blom, H. & Goujet, D. Thelodont scales from the Lower Devonian Red Bay Group, Spitsbergen. Palaeontology 45, 795–820 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
16.Pernègre, V. N. & Blieck, A. A revised heterostrachan-cased ichthyostratigraphy of the Wood Bay Formation (Lower Devonian, Spitsbergen), and correlation with Russian Arctic archipelagos. Geodiversitas 38, 5–20 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
17.Wellman, C. H. & Richardson, J. B. Sporomorph assemblages from the ‘Lower Old Red Sandstone’ of Lorne Scotland. Spec. Pap. Palaeontol. 55, 41–101.18.Richardson J. B. Taxonomy and classification of some new Early Devonian cryptospores from England. Spec. Pap. Palaeontol. 55, 7–40 (1996).19.Steemans, P. Etude palynostratgraphique du Devonian Inferieur dans l’Ouest de l’Europe. Mém. Soc. Géol. Minér. Bretagne 27, 1–453 (1989).
Google Scholar 
20.Rodriguez, R. M. Palinologia de las Formaciones del Silurico Superior-Devonico Inferior de la Cordillera Cantabrica, Noroeste de España (Institución Fray Bernardino de Sahagún, de la Excelentísima Diputación provincial de León y del Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de León, 1983).21.Richardson, J. B., Rodriguez, R. M. & Sutherland, S. J. E. Palynological zonation of Mid-Palaeozoic sequences from the Cantabrian Mountains, NW Spain: implications for inter-regional and interfacies correlation of the Ludfor/Pridoli and Silurian/Devonian boundaries, and plant dispersal patterns. Bull. Nat. Hist. Mus. Lond. 57, 115–162 (2001).
Google Scholar 
22.Rubinstein, C. & Steemans, P. Miospore assemblages from the Silurian–Devonian boundary, in borehole A1–61, Ghadames Basin, Libya. Rev. Palaeobot. Palynol. 118, 397–412 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
23.Spina, A. & Vecoli, M. Palynostratigraphy and vegetational change in the Siluro-Devonian of the Ghadamis basin, North Africa. Palaeogeog. Palaeoclimatol. Palaeoecol. 282, 1–18 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
24.Hao, S. G. & Gensel, P. G. in Plants Invade the Land (eds Gensel, P. G. & Edwards, D.) 103–119 (Columbia Univ. Press, 2001).25.Wellman, C. H. et al. Spore assemblages from the Lower Devonian Xujiachong Formation from Qujing, Yunnan, China. Palaeontology 55, 583–611 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
26.Hao, S. & Xue, J. The Early Devonian Posongchong Flora of Yunnan (Science Press, 2013).27.Edwards, D., & Li, C.-S. Further insights into the Lower Devonian terrestrial vegetation of Sichuan Province, China. Rev. Palaeobot. Palynol. 253, 37–48 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
28.Gao, L. Early Devonian spore and acritarchs from the Guijiatum Formation of Qujing, China. Bull. Inst. Geol. Chin. Acad. Sci. 9, 125–136 (1984).
Google Scholar 
29.Tian, J. et al. Late Silurian to early Devonian palynomorphs from Qujing, Yunnan, southwest China. Acta Geol. Sin. 85, 559–568 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
30.Høeg, O. A. The Downtonian and Dittonian flora of Spitsbergen. Skr. Svalbard Ishavet 83, 1–229 (1942).
Google Scholar 
31.Morris, J. L., Edwards, D. & Richardson, J. B. in Transformative Paleobotany (eds Krings, M. et al.) 49–67 (Academic Press, 2018).32.McSweeney, F. R., Shimeta, J. & Buckeridge, J. St. J. S. Two new genera of early Tracheophyta (Zosterophyllaceae) from the upper Silurian–Lower Devonian of Victoria, Australia. Alcheringa https://doi.org/10.1080/03115518.2020.1744725 (2020).33.Xue, J. H. et al. Silurian–Devonian terrestrial revolution in South China: taxonomy, diversity, and character evolution of vascular plants in a paleogeographically isolated low-latitude region. Earth Sci. Rev. 180, 92–125 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
34.Hao, S. G. et al. Zosterophyllum Penhallow around the Silurian–Devonian boundary of northeastern Yunnan, China. Int. J. Plant Sci. 168, 477–489 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
35.Hao, S. G. et al. Earliest rooting system and root: shoot ratio from a new Zosterophyllum plant. New Phytol. 185, 217–225 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
36.Xue, J.-Z. Two zosterophyll plants from the Lower Devonian (Lochkovian) Xitun Formation of northeastern Yunnan, China. Acta Geol. Sin. 83, 504–512 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
37.Xue, J.-Z. Lochkovian plants from the Xitun Formation of Yunnan, China and their palaeophytogeographical significance. Geol. Mag. 149, 333–344 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
38.Sun, Y. et al. Lethally high temperatures during the early Triassic greenhouse. Science 6105, 366–370 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
39.Meng, X. Y. & Gai, Z. K. Falxcornus, a new genus of Tridensaspidae (Galeaspida, stem-Gnathostomata) from the Lower Devonian in Qujing, Yunnan, China. Hist. Biol. https://doi.org/10.1080/08912963.2021.1952198 (2021).40.Traverse, A. Paleopalynology 2nd edn (Springer, 2007). More

1.Hungate, B. A., Dukes, J. S., Shaw, M. R., Luo, Y. & Field, C. B. Nitrogen and climate change. Science 302, 1512–1513 (2003).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
2.Wieder, W. R., Cleveland, C. C., Smith, W. K. & Todd-Brown, K. Future productivity and carbon storage limited by terrestrial nutrient availability. Nat. Geosci. 8, 441–444 (2015).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
3.Sulman, B. N. et al. Diverse mycorrhizal associations enhance terrestrial C storage in a global model. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 33, 501–523 (2019).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
4.Wieder, W. R., Cleveland, C. C., Lawrence, D. M. & Bonan, G. B. Effects of model structural uncertainty on carbon cycle projections: biological nitrogen fixation as a case study. Environ. Res. Lett. 10, 044016 (2015).5.Shi, M., Fisher, J. B., Brzostek, E. R. & Phillips, R. P. Carbon cost of plant nitrogen acquisition: global carbon cycle impact from an improved plant nitrogen cycle in the Community Land Model. Glob. Change Biol. 22, 1299–1314 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
6.Meyerholt, J., Zaehle, S. & Smith, M. J. Variability of projected terrestrial biosphere responses to elevated levels of atmospheric CO2 due to uncertainty in biological nitrogen fixation. Biogeosciences 13, 1491–1518 (2016).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
7.Fisher, J. B. et al. Carbon cost of plant nitrogen acquisition: a mechanistic, globally applicable model of plant nitrogen uptake, retranslocation, and fixation. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 24, GB1014 (2010).8.Wang, Y. P. & Houlton, B. Z. Nitrogen constraints on terrestrial carbon uptake: Implications for the global carbon-climate feedback. Geophys. Res. Lett. 36, L24403 (2009).9.Houlton, B. Z., Wang, Y.-P., Vitousek, P. M. & Field, C. B. A unifying framework for dinitrogen fixation in the terrestrial biosphere. Nature 454, 327–330 (2008).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
10.Steidinger, B. S. et al. Climatic controls of decomposition drive the global biogeography of forest-tree symbioses. Nature 569, 404–408 (2019).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
11.van Velzen, R., Doyle, J. J. & Geurts, R. A resurrected scenario: single gain and massive loss of nitrogen-fixing nodulation. Trends Plant Sci. 24, 49–57 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
12.Mills, B. et al. Modelling the long-term carbon cycle, atmospheric CO2, and Earth surface temperature from late Neoproterozoic to present day. Gondwana Res. 67, 172–186 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
13.Fowler, D. et al. The global nitrogen cycle in the twenty-first century. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 368, 20130164 (2013).14.Rogers, A. et al. A roadmap for improving the representation of photosynthesis in Earth system models. New Phytol. 213, 22–42 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
15.Prévost, D., Antoun, H. & Bordeleau, L. M. Effects of low temperatures on nitrogenase activity in sainfoin (Onobrychis viciifolia) nodulated by Arctic rhizobia. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 45, 205–210 (1987).Article 

Google Scholar 
16.Rainbird, R. M., Atkins, C. A. & Pate, J. S. Effect of temperature on nitrogenase functioning in cowpea nodules. Plant Physiol. 73, 392–394 (1983).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
17.Dalton, D. A. & Zobel, D. B. Ecological aspects of nitrogen fixation by Purshia tridentata. Plant Soil 48, 57–80 (1977).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
18.Waughman, G. J. The effect of temperature on nitrogenase activity. J. Exp. Bot. 28, 949–960 (1977).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
19.Wheeler, C. T. The causation of the diurnal changes in nitrogen fixation in the nodules of Alnus glutinosa. New Phytol. 70, 487–495 (1971).Article 

Google Scholar 
20.Schomberg, H. H. & Weaver, R. W. Nodulation, nitrogen fixation, and early growth of arrowleaf clover in response to root temperature and starter nitrogen. Agron. J. 84, 1046 (1992).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
21.Kou-Giesbrecht, S. & Menge, D. N. L. Nitrogen-fixing trees increase soil nitrous oxide emissions: a meta-analysis. Ecology 102, e03415 (2021).22.Bytnerowicz, T. A., Min, E., Griffin, K. L. & Menge, D. N. L. Repeatable, continuous and real‐time estimates of coupled nitrogenase activity and carbon exchange at the whole‐plant scale. Methods Ecol. Evol. 10, 960–970 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
23.Menge, D. N. L., Lichstein, J. W. & Ángeles-Pérez, G. Nitrogen fixation strategies can explain the latitudinal shift in nitrogen-fixing tree abundance. Ecology 95, 2236–2245 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
24.Staccone, A. et al. A spatially explicit, empirical estimate of tree-based biological nitrogen fixation in forests of the United States. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 32, e2019GB006241 (2020).25.Cierjacks, A. et al. Biological flora of the British Isles: Robinia pseudoacacia. J. Ecol. 101, 1623–1640 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
26.Benson, D. R. & Dawson, J. O. Recent advances in the biogeography and genecology of symbiotic Frankia and its host plants. Physiol. Plant. 130, 318–330 (2007).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
27.Fick, S. E. & Hijmans, R. J. WorldClim 2: new 1-km spatial resolution climate surfaces for global land areas. Int. J. Climatol. 37, 4302–4315 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
28.Kumarathunge, D. P. et al. Acclimation and adaptation components of the temperature dependence of plant photosynthesis at the global scale. New Phytol. 222, 768–784 (2019).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
29.Heskel, M. A. et al. Convergence in the temperature response of leaf respiration across biomes and plant functional types. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, 3832–3837 (2016).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
30.Kou-Giesbrecht, S. et al. A novel representation of biological nitrogen fixation and competitive dynamics between nitrogen-fixing and non-fixing plants in a land model (GFDL LM4.1-BNF). Biogeosciences 18, 4143–4183 (2021).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
31.Hardy, R. W. F., Holsten, R. D., Jackson, E. K. & Burns, R. C. The acetylene-ethylene assay for N2 fixation: laboratory and field evaluation. Plant Physiol. 43, 1185–1207 (1968).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
32.Cassar, N., Bellenger, J. P., Jackson, R. B., Karr, J. & Barnett, B. A. N2 fixation estimates in real-time by cavity ring-down laser absorption spectroscopy. Oecologia 168, 335–342 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
33.Taylor, B. N., Chazdon, R. L. & Menge, D. N. L. Successional dynamics of nitrogen fixation and forest growth in regenerating Costa Rican rainforests. Ecology 100, e02637 (2019).34.Kok, B. A Critical Consideration of the Quantum Yield of Chlorella-Photosynthesis (W. Junk, 1948).35.Liang, L. L. et al. Macromolecular rate theory (MMRT) provides a thermodynamics rationale to underpin the convergent temperature response in plant leaf respiration. Glob. Change Biol. 24, 1538–1547 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
36.Gunderson, C. A., O’hara, K. H., Campion, C. M., Walker, A. V. & Edwards, N. T. Thermal plasticity of photosynthesis: the role of acclimation in forest responses to a warming climate. Glob. Change Biol. 16, 2272–2286 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
37.Medlyn, B. E. et al. Temperature response of parameters of a biochemically based model of photosynthesis. II. A review of experimental data. Plant Cell Environ. 25, 1167–1179 (2002).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
38.Slot, M. & Winter, K. In situ temperature relationships of biochemical and stomatal controls of photosynthesis in four lowland tropical tree species. Plant Cell Environ. 40, 3055–3068 (2017).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
39.Murphy, B. K. & Stinziano, J. R. A derivation error that affects carbon balance models exists in the current implementation of the modified Arrhenius function. New Phytol. 6, 2371–2381 (2021).40.Yan, W. & Hunt, L. A. An equation for modelling the temperature response of plants using only the cardinal temperatures. Ann. Bot. 84, 607–614 (1999).Article 

Google Scholar 
41.Farquhar, G. D. & Busch, F. A. Changes in the chloroplastic CO2 concentration explain much of the observed Kok effect: a model. New Phytol. 214, 570–584 (2017).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
42.Farquhar, G. D., Von Caemmerer, S. & Berry, J. A. A biochemical model of photosynthetic CO2 assimilation in leaves of C3 species. Planta 149, 78–90 (1980).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
43.Duursma, R. A. Plantecophys – an R package for analysing and modelling leaf gas exchange data. PLoS ONE 10, e0143346 (2015).44.Bernacchi, C. J., Singsaas, E. L., Pimentel, C., Portis, A. R. Jr & Long, S. P. Improved temperature response functions for models of Rubisco-limited photosynthesis. Plant Cell Environ. 24, 253–260 (2001).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
45.De Kauwe, M. G. et al. A test of the ‘one-point method’ for estimating maximum carboxylation capacity from field-measured, light-saturated photosynthesis. New Phytol. 210, 1130–1144 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
46.Bolker, B. M. & R. Core Team. bbmle: Tools for General Maximum Likelihood Estimation (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2014).47.Burnham, K. P. & Anderson, D. R. Multimodel inference: understanding AIC and BIC in model selection. Sociol. Methods Res. 33, 261–304 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
48.Bolker, B. M. Ecological Models and Data in R (Princeton Univ. Press, 2008).49.Venables, W. & Ripley, B. Modern Applied Statistics with S (Springer, 2002).50.Bytnerowicz, T. A. tbytnero/Bytnerowicz-Akana-Griffin-Menge-N-fix-Temp: Bytnerowicz_Akana_Griffin_Menge_2022_Nature_Plants https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5764790 (2021). More

1.Bai, Y., Henry, J. & Wlodkowic, D. Chemosensory avoidance behaviors of marine amphipods Allorchestes compressa revealed using a millifluidic perfusion technology. Biomicrofluidics 14, 014110 (2020).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
2.Bownik, A. Daphnia swimming behaviour as a biomarker in toxicity assessment: a review. Sci. Total Environ. 601–602, 194–205 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
3.Libralato, G., Prato, E., Migliore, L., Cicero, A. M. & Manfra, L. A review of toxicity testing protocols and endpoints with Artemia spp. Ecol. Indic. 69, 35–49 (2016).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
4.Henry, J. & Wlodkowic, D. Towards high-throughput chemobehavioural phenomics in neuropsychiatric drug discovery. Mar. Drugs 17, 340 (2019).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
5.Morgana, S., Estévez-Calvar, N., Gambardella, C., Faimali, M. & Garaventa, F. A short-term swimming speed alteration test with nauplii of Artemia franciscana. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 147, 558–564 (2018).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
6.Bartolomé, M. C. & Sánchez-Fortún, S. Acute toxicity and inhibition of phototaxis induced by benzalkonium chloride in Artemia franciscana larvae. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 75, 1208–1213 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
7.Hellou, J. Behavioural ecotoxicology, an “early warning” signal to assess environmental quality. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. Int. 18, 1–11 (2011).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
8.Campana, O. & Wlodkowic, D. Ecotoxicology goes on a chip: embracing miniaturized bioanalysis in aquatic risk assessment. Environ. Sci. Technol. 52, 932–946 (2018).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
9.De Esch, C., Slieker, R., Wolterbeek, A., Woutersen, R. & de Groot, D. Zebrafish as potential model for developmental neurotoxicity testing. A mini review. Neurotoxicol. Teratol. 34, 545–553 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
10.Blackiston, D., Shomrat, T., Nicolas, C. L., Granata, C. & Levin, M. A second-generation device for automated training and quantitative behavior analyses of molecularly-tractable model organisms. PLoS ONE 5, e14370 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
11.Franco-Restrepo, J. E., Forero, D. A. & Vargas, R. A. A review of freely available, open-source software for the automated analysis of the behavior of adult. zebrafish. Zebrafish 16, 223–232 (2019).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
12.Henry, J., Rodriguez, A. & Wlodkowic, D. Impact of digital video analytics on accuracy of chemobehavioural phenotyping in aquatic toxicology. PeerJ 7, e7367 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
13.Henry, J. & Wlodkowic, D. High-throughput animal tracking in chemobehavioral phenotyping: current limitations and future perspectives. Behav. Processes 180, 104226 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
14.Garcia, G. R., Noyes, P. D. & Tanguay, R. L. Advancements in zebrafish applications for 21st century toxicology. Pharmacol. Ther. 161, 11–21 (2016).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
15.Rennekamp, A. J. & Peterson, R. T. 15 years of zebrafish chemical screening. Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol. 24, 58–70 (2015).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
16.Cartlidge, R. & Wlodkowic, D. Caging of planktonic rotifers in microfluidic environment for sub-lethal aquatic toxicity tests. Biomicrofluidics 12, 044111 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
17.Kohler, S. A., Parker, M. O. & Ford, A. T. Shape and size of the arenas affect amphipod behaviours: implications for ecotoxicology. PeerJ 6, e5271 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
18.Kohler, S. A., Parker, M. O. & Ford, A. T. Species-specific behaviours in amphipods highlight the need for understanding baseline behaviours in ecotoxicology. Aquat. Toxicol. 202, 173–180 (2018).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
19.Kohler, S. A., Parker, M. O. & Ford, A. T. High-throughput screening of psychotropic compounds: impacts on swimming behaviours in Artemia franciscana. Toxics 9, 64 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
20.Inoue, T., Hoshino, H., Yamashita, T., Shimoyama, S. & Agata, K. Planarian shows decision-making behavior in response to multiple stimuli by integrative brain function. Zoolog. Lett. 1, 7 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
21.Truong, L. et al. Multidimensional in vivo hazard assessment using zebrafish. Toxicol. Sci. 137, 212–233 (2014).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
22.Zhang, S., Hagstrom, D., Hayes, P., Graham, A. & Collins, E.-M. S. Multi-behavioral endpoint testing of an 87-chemical compound library in freshwater planarians. Toxicol. Sci. 167, 26–44 (2019).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
23.Akiyama, Y., Agata, K. & Inoue, T. Spontaneous behaviors and wall-curvature lead to apparent wall preference in planarian. PLoS ONE 10, e0142214 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
24.Blaser, R. E. & Rosemberg, D. B. Measures of anxiety in zebrafish (Danio rerio): dissociation of black/white preference and novel tank test. PLoS ONE 7, e36931 (2012).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
25.Harro, J. Animals, anxiety, and anxiety disorders: how to measure anxiety in rodents and why. Behav. Brain Res. 352, 81–93 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
26.Faimali, M. et al. Old model organisms and new behavioral end-points: swimming alteration as an ecotoxicological response. Mar. Environ. Res. 128, 36–45 (2017).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
27.Rashid, M. T. et al. Artemia swarm dynamics and path tracking. Nonlinear Dyn. 68, 555–563 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
28.Forward, R. B. & Rittschof, D. Brine shrimp larval photoresponses involved in diel vertical migration: activation by fish mucus and modified amino sugars. Limnol. Oceanogr. 44, 1904–1916 (1999).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
29.Gerhardt, A. Aquatic behavioral ecotoxicology—prospects and limitations. Hum. Ecol. Risk Assess. 13, 481–491 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
30.Ford, A. T. et al. The role of behavioral ecotoxicology in environmental protection. Environ. Sci. Technol. 55, 5620–5628 (2021).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
31.Bolker, B. M. et al. Generalized linear mixed models: a practical guide for ecology and evolution. Trends Ecol. Evol. 24, 127–135 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar  More

1.Gattuso, J.-P. et al. Contrasting futures for ocean and society from different anthropogenic CO2 emissions scenarios. Science 349, aac4722 (2015).
Google Scholar 
2.Caldeira, K. & Wickett, M. E. Anthropogenic carbon and ocean pH. Nature 425, 365 (2003).CAS 

Google Scholar 
3.Hönisch, B. et al. The geological record of ocean acidification. Science 335, 1058–1063 (2012).
Google Scholar 
4.Turley, C. & Gattuso, J.-P. Future biological and ecosystem impacts of ocean acidification and their socioeconomic-policy implications. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 4, 278–286 (2012).
Google Scholar 
5.San Martin, V. A. et al. Linking social preferences and ocean acidification impacts in mussel aquaculture. Sci. Rep. 9, 4719 (2019).
Google Scholar 
6.Falkenberg, L. et al. Ocean acidification and human health. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 17, 4563 (2020).CAS 

Google Scholar 
7.Loewe, M. & Rippin, N. The Sustainable Development Goals of the Post-2015 Agenda. Comments on the OWG and SDSN Proposals (German Development Institute 2015).8.Doney, S. C. et al. The impacts of ocean acidification on marine ecosystems and reliant human communities. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 45, 83–112 (2020).
Google Scholar 
9.Ekstrom, J. et al. Vulnerability and adaptation of US shellfisheries to ocean acidification. Nat. Clim. Change 5, 207–214 (2015).
Google Scholar 
10.Ponce Oliva, R. D. et al. Ocean acidification, consumers’ preferences, and market adaptation strategies in the mussel aquaculture industry. Ecol. Econ. 158, 42–50 (2019).
Google Scholar 
11.Quatrinni, A. M. et al. Palaeoclimate ocean conditions shaped the evolution of corals and their skeletons through deep time. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 4, 1531–1538 (2020).
Google Scholar 
12.Thomsen, J. et al. Naturally acidified habitat selects for ocean acidification-tolerant mussels. Sci. Adv. 3, e1602411 (2017).
Google Scholar 
13.Rastrick, S. S. P. et al. Using natural analogues to investigate the effects of climate change and ocean acidification on Northern ecosystems. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 75, 2299–2311 (2018).
Google Scholar 
14.Hall-Spencer, J. M. et al. Volcanic carbon dioxide vents reveal ecosystem effects of ocean acidification. Nature 454, 96–99 (2008).CAS 

Google Scholar 
15.Agostini, S. et al. Ocean acidification drives community shifts towards simplified non-calcified habitats in a subtropical–temperate transition zone. Sci. Rep. 8, 11354 (2018).
Google Scholar 
16.Riquelme-Bugueño, R. et al. Diel vertical migration into anoxic and high-pCO2 waters: acoustic and net-based krill observations in the Humboldt Current. Sci. Rep. 10, 17181 (2020).
Google Scholar 
17.Pérez et al. Riverine discharges impact physiological traits and carbon sources for shell carbonate in the marine intertidal mussel Perumytilus purpuratus. Limnol. Oceanogr. 61, 969–983 (2016).
Google Scholar 
18.Vargas, C. A. et al. Species-specific responses to ocean acidification should account for local adaptation and adaptive plasticity. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 1, 0084 (2017).
Google Scholar 
19.Saavedra et al. Local habitat influences on feeding and respiration of the intertidal mussels Perumytilus purpuratus exposed to increased pCO2 levels. Estuaries Coast. 41, 1118–1129 (2018).CAS 

Google Scholar 
20.Riebesell, U. & Gattuso, J.-P. Lessons learned from ocean acidification research. Nat. Clim. Change 5, 12–14 (2015).CAS 

Google Scholar 
21.Tilbrook, B. et al. An enhanced ocean acidification observing network: from people to technology to data synthesis and information exchange. Front. Mar. Sci. 6, 337 (2019).
Google Scholar 
22.Barry, J. P., Hall-Spencer, J. M. and Tyrrell, T. in Guide to Best Practices for Ocean Acidification Research and Data Reporting (eds Riebesell, U. et al.) Ch. 3 (Publications Office of the European Union, 2010).23.Vargas, C. A. et al. Influence of glacier melting and river discharges on the nutrient distribution and DIC recycling in the southern Chilean Patagonia. J. Geophys. Res. Biogeosci. 123, 256–270 (2018).
Google Scholar 
24.Feely, R. A. et al. Evidence for upwelling of corrosive ‘acidified’ water onto the Continental Shelf. Science 320, 1490–1492 (2008).CAS 

Google Scholar 
25.Vargas, C. A. et al. Riverine and corrosive upwelling waters influences on the carbonate system in the coastal upwelling area off Central Chile: implications for coastal acidification events. J. Geophys. Res. Biogeosci. 121, 1468–1483 (2016).
Google Scholar 
26.Cao, Z. et al. Dynamics of the carbonate system in a large continental shelf system under the influence of both a river plume and coastal upwelling. J. Geophys. Res. Oceans 116, G02010 (2010).
Google Scholar 
27.Feely, R. A. et al. The combined effects of ocean acidification, mixing, and respiration on pH and carbonate saturation in an urbanized estuary. Est. Coast. Shelf Sci. 88, 442–449 (2010).CAS 

Google Scholar 
28.Cai, W.-J. et al. Acidification of subsurface coastal waters enhanced by eutrophication. Nat. Geosci. 4, 766–770 (2011).CAS 

Google Scholar 
29.Kwiatkowski, L. et al. Nighttime dissolution in a temperate coastal ocean ecosystem increases under acidification. Sci. Rep. 6, 22984 (2016).CAS 

Google Scholar 
30.Wolfe, K., Nguyen, H. D., Davey, M. & Byrne, M. Characterizing biogeochemical fluctuations in a world of extremes: a synthesis for temperate intertidal habitats in the face of global change. Glob. Change Biol. 26, 3858–3879 (2020).
Google Scholar 
31.Shaw, E. C., Phinn, S. R., Tilbrook, B. & Steven, A. Natural in situ relationships suggest coral reef calcium carbonate production will decline with ocean acidification. Limnol. Oceanogr. 60, 777–788 (2015).
Google Scholar 
32.Takeshita, Y. et al. Coral reef carbonate chemistry variability at different functional scales. Front. Mar. Sci. 5, 175 (2018).
Google Scholar 
33.Brodeur, J. R. et al. Chesapeake Bay inorganic carbon: spatial distribution and seasonal variability. Front. Mar. Sci. 6, 99 (2019).
Google Scholar 
34.Hoshijima, U. & Hofmann, G. E. Variability of seawater chemistry in a kelp forest environment is linked to in situ transgenerational effects in the purple sea urchin, Strongylocentrotus purpuratus. Front. Mar. Sci. 6, 62 (2019).
Google Scholar 
35.Koweek, D. A. et al. A year in the life of a central California kelp forest: physical and biological insights into biogeochemical variability. Biogeosciences 14, 31–44 (2017).CAS 

Google Scholar 
36.Cornwall, C. E. & Hurd, C. L. Experimental design in ocean acidification research: problems and solutions. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 73, 572–581 (2016).
Google Scholar 
37.Kapsenberg, L. & Hofmann, G. E. Ocean pH time-series and drivers of variability along the northern Channel Islands, California, USA. Limnol. Oceanogr. 61, 953–968 (2016).
Google Scholar 
38.Hofmann, G. E. et al. High-frequency dynamics of ocean pH: a multi-ecosystem comparison. PLoS ONE 6, e28983 (2011).CAS 

Google Scholar 
39.Baumann, H. Experimental assessments of marine species sensitivities to ocean acidification and co-stressors: how far have we come? Can. J. Zool. 97, 399–408 (2019).
Google Scholar 
40.Cornwall, C. E. et al. Diurnal fluctuations in seawater pH influence the response of a calcifying macroalga to ocean acidification. Proc. R. Soc. B 280, 20132201 (2013).
Google Scholar 
41.Rivest, E. B., Comeau, S. & Cornwall, C. E. The role of natural variability in shaping the response of coral reef organisms to climate change. Curr. Clim. 3, 271–281 (2017).
Google Scholar 
42.Sanford, E. & Kelly, M. W. Local adaptation in marine invertebrates. Annu. Rev. Mar. Sci. 3, 509–535 (2011).
Google Scholar 
43.Lewis, C. N. et al. Sensitivity to ocean acidification parallels natural pCO2 gradients experienced by Arctic copepods under winter sea ice. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110, E4960–E4967 (2013).CAS 

Google Scholar 
44.Spalding, M. D. et al. Marine ecoregions of the world: a bioregionalization of coastal and shelf areas. BioScience 57, 573–583 (2007).
Google Scholar 
45.Aguilera, V. M., Vargas, C. A. & Dewitte, B. Intraseasonal hydrographic variations and nearshore carbonates system off northern Chile during the 2015 El Niño event. J. Geophys. Res. Biogeosci. 125, e2020JG005704 (2020).CAS 

Google Scholar 
46.Fassbender, A. J. et al. Seasonal carbonate chemistry variability in marine surface waters of the US Pacific Northwest. Earth Syst. Sci. Data 10, 1367–1401 (2018).
Google Scholar 
47.Reum, J. C. P. et al. Seasonal carbonate chemistry covariation with temperature, oxygen, and salinity in a fjord estuary: implications for the design of ocean acidification experiments. PLoS ONE 9, e89619 (2014).
Google Scholar 
48.Wallace, R. B. et al. Coastal ocean acidification: the other eutrophication problem. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 148, 1–13 (2014).CAS 

Google Scholar 
49.Rutgersson, A. et al. The annual cycle of carbon dioxide and parameters influencing the air–sea carbon exchange in the Baltic Proper. J. Mar. Syst. 74, 381–394 (2008).
Google Scholar 
50.Clargo, N. M., Salt, L. A., Thomas, H. & de Baar, H. J. W. Rapid increase of observed DIC and pCO2 in the surface waters of the North Sea in the 2001–2011 decade ascribed to climate change superimposed by biological processes. Mar. Chem. 177, 566–581 (2015).CAS 

Google Scholar 
51.Ericson, Y. et al. Temporal variability in surface water pCO2 in Adventfjorden (West Spitsbergen) with emphasis on physical and biogeochemical drivers. J. Geophys. Res. Oceans 123, 4888–4905 (2018).CAS 

Google Scholar 
52.Geilfus, N.-X. et al. Spatial and temporal variability of seawater pCO2 within the Canadian Arctic Archipelago and Baffin Bay during the summer and autumn 2011. Cont. Shelf Res. 156, 1–10 (2018).
Google Scholar 
53.Islam, F. et al. Sea surface pCO2 and O2 dynamics in the partially ice-covered Arctic Ocean. J. Geophys. Res. Oceans 122, 1425–1438 (2016).
Google Scholar 
54.Copin-Montégut, C., Bégovic, M. & Merlivat, L. Variability of the partial pressure of CO2 on diel to annual time scales in the Northwestern Mediterranean Sea. Mar. Chem. 85, 169–189 (2004).
Google Scholar 
55.Pardo, P. C. et al. Surface ocean carbon dioxide variability in South Pacific boundary currents and Subantarctic waters. Sci. Rep. 9, 7592 (2019).
Google Scholar 
56.Gagliano, M., McCormick, M. I., Moore, J. A. & Depczynski, M. The basics of acidification: baseline variability of pH on Australian coral reefs. Mar. Biol. 157, 1849–1856 (2010).CAS 

Google Scholar 
57.Takeshita, Y. et al. Including high-frequency variability in coastal acidification projections. Biogeosciences 12, 5853–5870 (2015).
Google Scholar 
58.Carter, H. A., Ceballos-Osuna, L., Miller, N. A. & Stillman, J. H. Impact of ocean acidification on metabolism and energetics during early life stages of the intertidal porcelain crab Petrolisthes cinctipes. J. Exp. Biol. 216, 1412–1422 (2013).CAS 

Google Scholar 
59.Ceballos-Osuna, L., Carter, H. A., Miller, N. A. & Stillman, J. H. Effects of ocean acidification on early life-history stages of the intertidal porcelain crab Petrolisthes cinctipes. J. Exp. Biol. 216, 1405–1411 (2013).CAS 

Google Scholar 
60.Miller, S. H. et al. Effect of elevated pCO2 on metabolic responses of porcelain crab (Petrolisthes cinctipes) larvae exposed to subsequent salinity stress. PLoS ONE 9, e109167 (2014).
Google Scholar 
61.Bayne, B. L. Metabolic expenditure. Dev. Aquacult. Fish. Sci. 41, 331–415 (2017).
Google Scholar 
62.Waldbusser, G. G. et al. Slow shell building, a possible trait for resistance to the effects of acute ocean acidification. Limnol. Oceanogr. 61, 1969–1983 (2016).
Google Scholar 
63.Dorey, N., Lancon, P., Thorndyke, M. & Dupont, S. Assessing physiological tipping point for sea urchin larvae exposed to a broad range of pH. Glob. Change Biol. 19, 3355–3367 (2013).
Google Scholar 
64.Kelly, M. W., Padilla-Gamiño, J. L. & Hofmann, G. E. Natural variation and the capacity to adapt to ocean acidification in the keystone sea urchin Strongylocentrotus purpuratus. Glob. Change Biol. 19, 2536–2546 (2015).
Google Scholar 
65.Gaitán-Espitia, J. D. et al. Spatio–temporal environmental variation mediates geographical differences in phenotypic responses to ocean acidification. Biol. Lett. 13, 20160865 (2017).
Google Scholar 
66.Calosi, P. et al. Distribution of sea urchins living near shallow water CO2 vents is dependent upon species acid–base and ion-regulatory abilities. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 73, 470–484 (2013).CAS 

Google Scholar 
67.Foo, S. A., Dworjanyn, S. A., Poore, A. G. B. & Byrne, M. Adaptive capacity of the habitat modifying sea urchin Centrostephanus rodgersii to ocean warming and ocean acidification: performance of early embryos. PLoS ONE 7, e42497 (2012).CAS 

Google Scholar 
68.Chan, K. Y. K., Grünbaum, D., Arnberg, M. & Dupont, S. Impacts of ocean acidification on survival, growth, and swimming behaviours differ between larval urchins and brittlestars. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 73, 951–996 (2016).
Google Scholar 
69.Stumpp, M. et al. Acidified seawater impacts sea urchin larvae pH regulatory systems relevant for calcification. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109, 18192–18197 (2012).CAS 

Google Scholar 
70.Stumpp, M. et al. Digestion in sea urchin larvae impaired under ocean acidification. Nat. Clim. Change 3, 1044–1049 (2013).CAS 

Google Scholar 
71.Thor, P. & Dupont, S. Transgenerational effects alleviate severe fecundity loss during ocean acidification in a ubiquitous planktonic copepod. Glob. Change Biol. 21, 2261–2271 (2015).
Google Scholar 
72.Gibbin, E. M. et al. The evolution of phenotypic plasticity under global change. Sci. Rep. 7, 17253 (2017).
Google Scholar 
73.Gibbin, E. M. et al. Can multi-generational exposure to ocean warming and acidification lead to the adaptation of life history and physiology in a marine metazoan? J. Exp. Biol. 220, 551–563 (2017).
Google Scholar 
74.Dam, H. G. et al. Rapid, but limited, zooplankton adaptation to simultaneous warming and acidification. Nat. Clim. Change 11, 780–786 (2021).
Google Scholar 
75.Byrne, M. Impact of ocean warming and ocean acidification on marine invertebrate life history stages: vulnerabilities and potential for persistence in a changing ocean. Oceanogr. Mar. Biol. 49, 1–42 (2011).
Google Scholar 
76.Kroeker, K. J., Kordas, R. L., Crim, R. N. & Singh, G. G. Meta-analysis reveals negative yet variable effects of ocean acidification on marine organisms. Ecol. Lett. 13, 1419–1434 (2010).
Google Scholar 
77.Kroeker et al. Impacts of ocean acidification on marine organisms: quantifying sensitivities and interaction with warming. Glob. Change Biol. 19, 1884–1896 (2013).
Google Scholar 
78.Takahashi, T., Sutherland, S. C. & Kozyr, A. LDEO Database (Version 2019): Global Ocean Surface Water Partial Pressure of CO2 Database: Measurements Performed During 1957–2019 (NCEI Accession 0160492) Version 9.9 (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Centers for Environmental Information); https://doi.org/10.3334/CDIAC/OTG.NDP088(V2015)79.Manly, B. F. J. Randomization, Bootstrap and Monte Carlo Methods in Biology (CRC Press, 1997).80.Martinez, W. L. & Martinez, A. R. Computational Statistics Handbook with MATLAB (CRC Press, 2002). More