Philippa Kaur

1.Clobert, J., Danchin, E., Dhondt, A. A. & Nichols, J. D. Dispersal (Oxford University Press, 2001).
Google Scholar 
2.Ronce, O. How does it feel to be like a rolling stone? Ten questions about dispersal evolution. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 38, 231–253 (2007).
Google Scholar 
3.Clobert, J., Baguette, M., Benton, T. G. & Bullock, J. M. Dispersal Ecology and Evolution (Oxford University Press, 2012).
Google Scholar 
4.Cote, J., Fogarty, S., Brodin, T., Weinersmith, K. & Sih, A. Personality-dependent dispersal in the invasive mosquitofish: Group composition matters. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 278, 1670–1678 (2011).
Google Scholar 
5.Quinn, J. L., Cole, E. F., Patrick, S. C. & Sheldon, B. C. Scale and state dependence of the relationship between personality and dispersal in a great tit population. J. Anim. Ecol. 80, 918–928 (2011).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
6.Brodin, T., Lind, M. I., Wiberg, M. K. & Johansson, F. Personality trait differences between mainland and island populations in the common frog (Rana temporaria). Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 67, 135–143 (2013).
Google Scholar 
7.Wilson, D. S. Adaptive individual differences within single populations. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London. Ser. B Biol. Sci. 353, 199–205 (1998).
Google Scholar 
8.Sih, A., Bell, A. & Johnson, J. C. Behavioral syndromes: An ecological and evolutionary overview. Trends Ecol. Evol. 19, 372–378 (2004).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
9.Sih, A., Bell, A. M., Johnson, J. C. & Ziemba, R. E. Behavioral syndromes: An integrative overview. Q. Rev. Biol. 79, 241–277 (2004).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
10.Réale, D., Reader, S. M., Sol, D., McDougall, P. T. & Dingemanse, N. J. Integrating animal temperament within ecology and evolution. Biol. Rev. 82, 291–318 (2007).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
11.Wolf, M. & Weissing, F. J. Animal personalities: Consequences for ecology and evolution. Trends Ecol. Evol. 27, 452–461 (2012).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
12.Juette, T., Cucherousset, J. & Cote, J. Animal personality and the ecological impacts of freshwater non-native species. Curr. Zool. 60, 417–427 (2014).
Google Scholar 
13.Duckworth, R. A. & Badyaev, A. V. Coupling of dispersal and aggression facilitates the rapid range expansion of a passerine bird. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 104, 15017–15022 (2007).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
14.Conrad, J. L., Weinersmith, K. L., Brodin, T., Saltz, J. B. & Sih, A. Behavioural syndromes in fishes: A review with implications for ecology and fisheries management. J. Fish Biol. 78, 395–435 (2011).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
15.Cote, J., Fogarty, S., Weinersmith, K., Brodin, T. & Sih, A. Personality traits and dispersal tendency in the invasive mosquitofish (Gambusia affinis). Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 277, 1571–1579 (2010).
Google Scholar 
16.Malange, J., Izar, P. & Japyassú, H. Personality and behavioural syndrome in Necromys lasiurus (Rodentia: Cricetidae): Notes on dispersal and invasion processes. Acta Ethol. 19, 189–195 (2016).
Google Scholar 
17.Rees, E. M. A. et al. Socio-economic drivers of specialist anglers targeting the non-native European catfish (Silurus glanis) in the UK. PLoS ONE 12, e0178805 (2017).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
18.Bowler, D. E. & Benton, T. G. Causes and consequences of animal dispersal strategies: Relating individual behaviour to spatial dynamics. Biol. Rev. 80, 205–225 (2005).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
19.Clobert, J., Le Galliard, J.-F., Cote, J., Meylan, S. & Massot, M. Informed dispersal, heterogeneity in animal dispersal syndromes and the dynamics of spatially structured populations. Ecol. Lett. 12, 197–209 (2009).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
20.Dukes, J. S. & Mooney, H. A. Does global change increase the success of biological invaders?. Trends Ecol. Evol. 14, 135–139 (1999).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
21.Gozlan, R. E., Britton, J. R., Cowx, I. & Copp, G. H. Current knowledge on non-native freshwater fish introductions. J. Fish Biol. 76, 751–786 (2010).
Google Scholar 
22.Pimentel, D. et al. Economic and environmental threats of alien plant, animal, and microbe invasions. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 84, 1–20 (2001).
Google Scholar 
23.Dingemanse, N. J., Kazem, A. J. N., Réale, D. & Wright, J. Behavioural reaction norms: Animal personality meets individual plasticity. Trends Ecol. Evol. 25, 81–89 (2010).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
24.Dochtermann, N. A., Schwab, T. & Sih, A. The contribution of additive genetic variation to personality variation: Heritability of personality. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 282, 20142201 (2015).
Google Scholar 
25.Duckworth, R. A. Evolution of personality: Developmental constraints on behavioral flexibility. Auk 127, 752–758 (2010).
Google Scholar 
26.Trillmich, F., Müller, T. & Müller, C. Understanding the evolution of personality requires the study of mechanisms behind the development and life history of personality traits. Biol. Lett. 14, 20170740 (2018).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
27.Dingemanse, N. J. & Réale, D. Natural selection and animal personality. Behaviour 142, 1159–1184 (2005).
Google Scholar 
28.Sih, A., Cote, J., Evans, M., Fogarty, S. & Pruitt, J. Ecological implications of behavioural syndromes. Ecol. Lett. 15, 278–289 (2012).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
29.Stamps, J. A. Growth-mortality tradeoffs and ‘personality traits’ in animals. Ecol. Lett. 10, 355–363 (2007).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
30.Chapple, D. G., Simmonds, S. M. & Wong, B. B. M. Can behavioral and personality traits influence the success of unintentional species introductions?. Trends Ecol. Evol. 27, 57–64 (2012).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
31.Hirsch, P. E., Thorlacius, M., Brodin, T. & Burkhardt-Holm, P. An approach to incorporate individual personality in modeling fish dispersal across in-stream barriers. Ecol. Evol. 7, 720–732 (2017).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
32.Groen, M. et al. Is there a role for aggression in round goby invasion fronts?. Behaviour 149, 685–703 (2012).
Google Scholar 
33.Urban, M. C., Phillips, B. L., Skelly, D. K. & Shine, R. A toad more traveled: The heterogeneous invasion dynamics of cane toads in Australia. Am. Nat. 171, E134–E148 (2008).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
34.Lopez, D. P., Jungman, A. A. & Rehage, J. S. Nonnative African jewelfish are more fit but not bolder at the invasion front: A trait comparison across an Everglades range expansion. Biol. Invasions 14, 2159–2174 (2012).
Google Scholar 
35.Dingemanse, N. J. & Wolf, M. Recent models for adaptive personality differences: A review. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 365, 3947–3958 (2010).
Google Scholar 
36.Dingemanse, N. J. & Réale, D. What is the evidence that natural selection maintains variation in animal personalities? In Animal Personalities: Behavior, Physiology, and Evolution (eds Carere, C. & Maestripieri, D.) 201–220 (University of Chicago Press, 2013).
Google Scholar 
37.Weiss, A. Personality traits: A view from the animal kingdom. J. Pers. 86, 12–22 (2018).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
38.Archard, G. A. & Braithwaite, V. A. The importance of wild populations in studies of animal temperament. J. Zool. 281, 149–160 (2010).
Google Scholar 
39.Holt, R. D., Keitt, T. H., Lewis, M. A., Maurer, B. A. & Taper, M. L. Theoretical models of species’ borders: Single species approaches. Oikos 108, 18–27 (2005).
Google Scholar 
40.Liedvogel, M., Chapman, B. B., Muheim, R. & Åkesson, S. The behavioural ecology of animal movement: Reflections upon potential synergies. Anim. Migr. 1, 39–46 (2013).
Google Scholar 
41.Campos-Candela, A., Palmer, M., Balle, S., Álvarez, A. & Alós, J. A mechanistic theory of personality-dependent movement behaviour based on dynamic energy budgets. Ecol. Lett. 22, 213–232 (2019).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
42.Bubb, D. H., Thom, T. J. & Lucas, M. C. Movement, dispersal and refuge use of co-occurring introduced and native crayfish. Freshw. Biol. 51, 1359–1368 (2006).
Google Scholar 
43.Luque, G. M. et al. The 100th of the world’s worst invasive alien species. Biol. Invasions 16, 981–985 (2014).
Google Scholar 
44.Galib, S. M., Findlay, J. S. & Lucas, M. C. Strong impacts of signal crayfish invasion on upland stream fish and invertebrate communities. Freshw. Biol. 66, 223–240 (2021).
Google Scholar 
45.Lindstrom, T., Brown, G. P., Sisson, S. A., Phillips, B. L. & Shine, R. Rapid shifts in dispersal behavior on an expanding range edge. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 110, 13452–13456 (2013).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
46.Bubb, D. H., Thom, T. J. & Lucas, M. C. The within-catchment invasion of the non-indigenous signal crayfish Pacifastacus leniusculus (Dana), in upland rivers. Bull. Fr. Pêche Piscic. 376–377, 665–673 (2005).
Google Scholar 
47.Závorka, L., Lassus, R., Britton, J. R. & Cucherousset, J. Phenotypic responses of invasive species to removals affect ecosystem functioning and restoration. Glob. Chang. Biol. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15271 (2020).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
48.Sbragaglia, V. & Breithaupt, T. Daily activity rhythms, chronotypes, and risk-taking behavior in the signal crayfish. Curr. Zool. https://doi.org/10.1093/cz/zoab023 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
49.R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.r-project.org/ (2020).50.Pintor, L. M., Sih, A. & Bauer, M. L. Differences in aggression, activity and boldness between native and introduced populations of an invasive crayfish. Oikos 117, 1629–1636 (2008).
Google Scholar 
51.Rupia, E. J., Binning, S. A., Roche, D. G. & Lu, W. Fight-flight or freeze-hide? Personality and metabolic phenotype mediate physiological defence responses in flatfish. J. Anim. Ecol. 85, 927–937 (2016).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
52.Karavanich, C. & Atema, J. Individual recognition and memory in lobster dominance. Anim. Behav. 56, 1553–1560 (1998).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
53.Houlihan, D., Govind, C. & El Haj, A. Energetics of swimming in Callinectes sapidus and walking in Homarus americanus. Comp. Biochem. Physiol. Part A Physiol. 82, 267–279 (1985).
Google Scholar 
54.Vogt, G. Functional anatomy. In Biology of Freshwater Crayfish (ed. Holdich, D. M.) 53–151 (Blackwell Science Ltd., 2002).
Google Scholar 
55.Southwood, T. R. E. & Henderson, P. A. Ecological Methods (Blackwell Science Ltd., 2000).
Google Scholar 
56.Clark, J. & Kershner, M. Size-dependent effects of visible implant elastomer marking on crayfish (Orconectes obscurus) growth, mortality, and tag retention. Crustaceana 79, 275–284 (2006).
Google Scholar 
57.Streissl, F. & Hödl, W. Habitat and shelter requirements of the stone crayfish, Austropotamobius torrentium Schrank. Hydrobiologia 477, 195–199 (2002).
Google Scholar 
58.Chadwick, D. D. A. et al. A novel ‘triple drawdown’ method highlights deficiencies in invasive alien crayfish survey and control techniques. J. Appl. Ecol. 58, 316–326 (2021).
Google Scholar 
59.Stoffel, M. A., Nakagawa, S. & Schielzeth, H. rptR: repeatability estimation and variance decomposition by generalized linear mixed-effects models. Methods Ecol. Evol. 8, 1639–1644 (2017).
Google Scholar 
60.Holm, S. A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure. Scand. J. Stat. 6, 65–70 (1979).MathSciNet 
MATH 

Google Scholar 
61.Quinn, G. P. & Keough, M. J. Experimental Design and Data Analysis for Biologists (Cambridge University Press, 2002).
Google Scholar 
62.Jackson, D. A. Stopping rules in principal components analysis: A comparison of heuristical and statistical approaches. Ecology 74, 2204–2214 (1993).
Google Scholar 
63.Budaev, S. V. Using principal components and factor analysis in animal behaviour research: Caveats and guidelines. Ethology 116, 472–480 (2010).
Google Scholar 
64.Robinson, C. A., Thom, T. J. & Lucas, M. C. Ranging behaviour of a large freshwater invertebrate, the white-clawed crayfish Austropotamobius pallipes. Freshw. Biol. 44, 509–521 (2000).
Google Scholar 
65.Bubb, D. H., O’Malley, O. J., Gooderham, A. C. & Lucas, M. C. Relative impacts of native and non-native crayfish on shelter use by an indigenous benthic fish. Aquat. Conserv. Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 19, 448–455 (2009).
Google Scholar 
66.Fox, J. & Weisberg, S. An R Companion to Applied Regression (Sage, 2011).
Google Scholar 
67.Burnham, K. P. & Anderson, D. R. Model Selection and Multimodel Inferences: A Practical Information-Theoretic Approach (Springer, 2002).MATH 

Google Scholar 
68.Bartoń, K. MuMIn: Multi-Model Inference. R Package version 1.43.6. (2019).69.Kleiber, C. & Zeileis, A. Applied Econometrics with R (Springer, 2008).MATH 

Google Scholar 
70.Edwards, D. D., Rapin, K. E. & Moore, P. A. Linking phenotypic correlations from a diverse set of laboratory tests to field behaviors in the crayfish, Orconectes virilis. Ethology 124, 311–330 (2018).
Google Scholar 
71.Teknomo, K. Similarity Measurements. https://people.revoledu.com/kardi/tutorial/Similarity (2015).72.Bell, A. M., Hankison, S. J. & Laskowski, K. L. The repeatability of behaviour: A meta-analysis. Anim. Behav. 77, 771–783 (2009).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
73.Vainikka, A., Rantala, M. J., Niemelä, P., Hirvonen, H. & Kortet, R. Boldness as a consistent personality trait in the noble crayfish, Astacus astacus. Acta Ethol. 14, 17–25 (2011).
Google Scholar 
74.Fraser, D. F., Gilliam, J. F., Daley, M. J., Le, A. N. & Skalski, G. T. Explaining leptokurtic movement distributions: Intrapopulation variation in boldness and exploration. Am. Nat. 158, 124–135 (2001).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
75.Dingemanse, N. J., Both, C., van Noordwijk, A. J., Rutten, A. L. & Drent, P. J. Natal dispersal and personalities in great tits (Parus major). Proc. R. Soc. London. Ser. B Biol. Sci. 270, 741–747 (2003).
Google Scholar 
76.McMahon, T. E. & Tash, J. C. Experimental analysis of the role of emigration in population regulation of desert pupfish. Ecology 69, 1871–1883 (1988).
Google Scholar 
77.Porter, J. H. & Dooley, J. L. Animal dispersal patterns: A reassessment of simple mathematical models. Ecology 74, 2436–2443 (1993).
Google Scholar 
78.Einum, S., Sundt-Hansen, L. & Nislow, K. H. The partitioning of density-dependent dispersal, growth and survival throughout ontogeny in a highly fecund organism. Oikos 113, 489–496 (2006).
Google Scholar 
79.Lodge, D. M. & Hill, A. M. Factors governing species composition, population size and productivity of coolwater crayfishes. Nord. J. Freshw. Res. 69, 111–136 (1994).
Google Scholar 
80.Berthouly-Salazar, C., van Rensburg, B. J., Le Roux, J. J., van Vuuren, B. J. & Hui, C. Spatial sorting drives morphological variation in the invasive bird, Acridotheris tristis. PLoS ONE 7, e38145 (2012).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
81.Juanes, F. & Smith, L. D. The ecological consequences of limb damage and loss in decapod crustaceans: A review and prospectus. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 193, 197–223 (1995).
Google Scholar 
82.Wilshin, S. et al. Limping following limb loss increases locomotor stability. J. Exp. Biol. 221, jeb174268 (2018).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
83.Podgorniak, T., Blanchet, S., De Oliveira, E., Daverat, F. & Pierron, F. To boldly climb: Behavioural and cognitive differences in migrating European glass eels. R. Soc. Open Sci. 3, 150665 (2016).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
84.Bubb, D. H., Thom, T. J. & Lucas, M. C. Movement patterns of the invasive signal crayfish determined by PIT telemetry. Can. J. Zool. 84, 1202–1209 (2006).
Google Scholar 
85.Bilton, D. T., Freeland, J. R. & Okamura, B. Dispersal in freshwater invertebrates. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 32, 159–181 (2001).
Google Scholar 
86.Bubb, D. H., Thom, T. J. & Lucas, M. C. Movement and dispersal of the invasive signal crayfish Pacifastacus leniusculus in upland rivers. Freshw. Biol. 49, 357–368 (2004).
Google Scholar 
87.Hudina, S., Kutleša, P., Trgovčić, K. & Duplić, A. Dynamics of range expansion of the signal crayfish (Pacifastacus leniusculus) in a recently invaded region in Croatia. Aquat. Invasions 12, 67–75 (2017).
Google Scholar 
88.Wutz, S. & Geist, J. Sex- and size-specific migration patterns and habitat preferences of invasive signal crayfish (Pacifastacus leniusculus Dana). Limnologica 43, 59–66 (2013).
Google Scholar 
89.Fraser, H., Barnett, A., Parker, T. H. & Fidler, F. The role of replication studies in ecology. Ecol. Evol. 10, 5197–5207 (2020).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
90.Linzmaier, S. M., Goebel, L. S., Ruland, F. & Jeschke, J. M. Behavioral differences in an over-invasion scenario: marbled vs. spiny-cheek crayfish. Ecosphere 9, e02385 (2018).
Google Scholar 
91.Wang, X. et al. Anthropogenic habitat loss accelerates the range expansion of a global invader. Divers. Distrib. https://doi.org/10.1111/ddi.13359 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar  More

Relationships between microbial diversity and base flow indexThe number of reads obtained per sample and total number of OTUs obtained after rarefaction for each gene dataset are summarised in Table S2. According to taxonomic analyses of our 16S rRNA gene dataset, archaeal communities in our river sediment samples consisted largely of OTUs assigned to the Woesarchaeota (20.8% of OTUs and 24.7% of reads) and Methanomicrobia (16.9% of OTUs and 31.8% of reads). Of the functional groups analysed here, ten OTUs were assigned to AOA, Nitrososphaera (n = 8) and Nitrosopumilus (n = 2), that together formed 4.8% of all archaeal 16S rRNA reads. A total of 137 OTUs were assigned to orders of methanogenic archaea, with 15.3% and 16% of archaeal reads assigned to the orders Methanomicrobiales and Methanosarcinales, respectively, with other methanogen orders constituting a further 6.7% of reads.Bacterial communities were more diverse and OTUs assigned to taxa within the functional groups analysed here formed a relatively small proportion of our bacterial 16S rRNA gene dataset. Ammonia oxidising bacteria were represented by only five OTUs (all assigned to Nitrosospira) that together constituted 0.02% of the total bacterial community across our sediments. A further 84 OTUs were assigned to methanotrophic genera, and these OTUs contributed a total of 0.88% of all bacterial 16S rRNA sequences. These were Methylobacter (30 OTUs, 0.7% of bacterial sequences), Methylophilus (15 OTUs, 0.1% of bacterial sequences), Methylosoma (7 OTUs, 0.004% of bacterial sequences), Methylomonas and Methylotenera (6 OTUs each, 0.02 and 0.002% of bacterial sequences, respectively), and Methylosarcina (5 OTUs, 0.002% of bacterial sequences), with a further eight genera represented by a total of 15 OTUs. As reported previously, no OTUs were assigned to known anammox genera, which were likely below the limit of detection in our study [8].The OTU richness of archaeal communities (based on 16S rRNA amplicons) was negatively, albeit weakly, related to BFI (coef = 0.52, z = −2.95, adj-D2 = 0.12, P  More

1.Cao, S. & Zhang, J. Political risks arising from the impacts of large-scale afforestation on water resources of the Tibetan Plateau. Gondwana Res. 28, 898–903 (2015).ADS 

Google Scholar 
2.Kinzig, A. P. et al. Response—Ecosystem services: Free lunch no more. Science 335, 656 (2012).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
3.Zhang, J. et al. Natural recovery and restoration in giant panda habitat after the Wenchuan earthquake. For. Ecol. Manage. 319, 1–9 (2014).
Google Scholar 
4.Chen, Z. et al. Land-use change from arable lands to orchards reduced soil erosion and increased nutrient loss in a small catchment. Sci. Total Environ. 648, 1097–1104 (2019).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
5.Boerema, A., Van Passel, S. & Meire, P. Cost-effectiveness analysis of ecosystem management with ecosystem services: From theory to practice. Ecol. Econ. 152, 207–218 (2018).
Google Scholar 
6.Bouwma, I. et al. Adoption of the ecosystem services concept in EU policies. Ecosyst. Serv. 29, 213–222 (2018).
Google Scholar 
7.Carpenter, S. R. et al. Millennium ecosystem assessment: Research needs. Science 314, 257 (2006).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
8.Xiao, Q., Tao, J., Xiao, Y. & Qian, F. Monitoring vegetation cover in Chongqing between 2001 and 2010 using remote sensing data. Environ. Monit. Assess. 189, 493 (2017).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
9.Harrison, X. A. et al. A brief introduction to mixed effects modelling and multi-model inference in ecology. PeerJ 6, e4794 (2018).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
10.Zhang, J. et al. Modeling activity patterns of wildlife using time-series analysis. Ecol. Evol. 7, 2575–2584 (2017).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
11.Fu, B. et al. Hydrogeomorphic ecosystem responses to natural and anthropogenic changes in the Loess Plateau of China. Annu. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci. 45, 223–243 (2017).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
12.Ouyang, W. et al. Combined impacts of land use and soil property changes on soil erosion in a mollisol area under long-term agricultural development. Sci. Total Environ. 613–614, 798–809 (2018).ADS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
13.Arneth, A. et al. Post-2020 biodiversity targets need to embrace climate change. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 117, 30882 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
14.Keyes, A. A., McLaughlin, J. P., Barner, A. K. & Dee, L. E. An ecological network approach to predict ecosystem service vulnerability to species losses. Nat. Commun. 12, 1586 (2021).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
15.Feng, X. et al. Human cystic and alveolar echinococcosis in the Tibet Autonomous Region (TAR), China. J. Helminthol. 89, 671–679 (2015).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
16.Hallquist, M. et al. Photochemical smog in China: Scientific challenges and implications for air-quality policies. Natl. Sci. Rev. 3, 401–403 (2016).CAS 

Google Scholar 
17.Zhang, G. G. et al. Abundance and conservation of waterbirds breeding on the Changtang Plateau, Tibet Autonomous Region, China. Waterbirds 38, 19–29 (2015).CAS 

Google Scholar 
18.Sun, D. et al. Soil erosion and water retention varies with plantation type and age. For. Ecol. Manage. 422, 1–10 (2018).
Google Scholar 
19.Wangdwei, M., Steele, B. & Harris, R. B. Demographic responses of plateau pikas to vegetation cover and land use in the Tibet Autonomous Region, China. J. Mammal. 94, 1077–1086 (2013).
Google Scholar 
20.Zhuo, G., La, B., Pubu, C. & Luo, B. Study on daily surface evapotranspiration with SEBS in Tibet Autonomous Region. J. Geogr. Sci. 24, 113–128 (2014).ADS 

Google Scholar 
21.Butarbutar, T., Soedirman, S., Neupane, P. R. & Köhl, M. Carbon recovery following selective logging in tropical rainforests in Kalimantan, Indonesia. For. Ecosyst. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40663-019-0195-x (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
22.Yu, W. J. & Zhou, W. Q. Spatial pattern of urban change in two Chinese megaregions: Contrasting responses to national policy and economic mode. Sci. Total Environ. 634, 1362–1371 (2018).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
23.Storch, F., Kändler, G. & Bauhus, J. Assessing the influence of harvesting intensities on structural diversity of forests in south-west Germany. For. Ecosyst. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40663-019-0199-6 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
24.Xiao, Y. & Xiao, Q. Identifying key areas of ecosystem services potential to improve ecological management in Chongqing City, southwest China. Environ. Monit. Assess 190, 258 (2018).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
25.Ge, J. et al. Modeling alpine grassland cover based on MODIS data and support vector machine regression in the headwater region of the Huanghe River, China. Remote Sens. Environ. 218, 162–173 (2018).ADS 

Google Scholar 
26.Symes, W. S., Edwards, D. P., Miettinen, J., Rheindt, F. E. & Carrasco, L. R. Combined impacts of deforestation and wildlife trade on tropical biodiversity are severely underestimated. Nat. Commun. 9, 4052 (2018).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
27.Xin, S. et al. Forestland-cover changes in China’s tropical area: Historical patterns, implications, and policy options-a case study from Xishuangbanna. J. Sustain. For. 36, 18–31 (2017).
Google Scholar 
28.Rao, Y. et al. Integrating ecosystem services value for sustainable land-use management in semi-arid region. J. Clean. Prod. 186, 662–672 (2018).
Google Scholar 
29.Ricketts, T. H. et al. Disaggregating the evidence linking biodiversity and ecosystem services. Nat. Commun. 7, 13106 (2016).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
30.Nguyen, M. D., Ancev, T. & Randall, A. Forest governance and economic values of forest ecosystem services in Vietnam. Land Use Policy 97, 103297 (2018).
Google Scholar 
31.Xu, W. et al. Strengthening protected areas for biodiversity and ecosystem services in China. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 114, 1601–1606 (2017).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
32.Ouyang, Z. et al. Using gross ecosystem product (GEP) to value nature in decision making. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 117, 14593–14601 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
33.Anne, B. et al. Towards an operational methodology to optimize ecosystem services provided by urban soils. Landsc. Urban Plan. 176, 1–9 (2018).
Google Scholar 
34.Karlen, D. L., Peterson, G. A. & Westfall, D. G. Soil and water conservation: Our history and future challenges. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 78, 1493–1499 (2014).ADS 

Google Scholar 
35.Tuo, D., Xu, M. & Gao, G. Relative contributions of wind and water erosion to total soil loss and its effect on soil properties in sloping croplands of the Chinese Loess Plateau. Sci. Total Environ. 633, 1032–1040 (2018).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
36.Rubio-Delgado, J., Schnabel, S., Gómez-Gutiérrez, Á. & Sánchez-Fernández, M. Estimation of soil erosion rates in dehesas using the inflection point of holm oaks. CATENA 166, 56–67 (2018).
Google Scholar 
37.Abouabdillah, A. et al. Evaluation of soil and water conservation measures in a semi-arid river basin in Tunisia using SWAT. Soil Use Manage. 30, 539–549 (2014).
Google Scholar 
38.Dominati, E. J., Mackay, A., Lynch, B., Heath, N. & Millner, I. An ecosystem services approach to the quantification of shallow mass movement erosion and the value of soil conservation practices. Ecosyst. Serv. 9, 204–215 (2014).
Google Scholar 
39.Engdawork, A. & Bork, H.-R. Long-term indigenous soil conservation technology in the Chencha Area, Southern Ethiopia: Origin, characteristics, and sustainability. Ambio 43, 932–942 (2014).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
40.Sverdrup, H. U. & Olafsdottir, A. H. Considerations on the future biomass production potential of Iceland, and what role that could have in future fuel supply and carbon balances. J. Sustain. For. 36, 647–665 (2017).
Google Scholar 
41.Ofoegbu, C. & Speranza, C. I. Assessing rural peoples’ intention to adopt sustainable forest use and management practices in South Africa. J. Sustain. For. 36, 729–746 (2017).
Google Scholar 
42.Munyati, C. & Sinthumule, N. I. Cover gradients and the forest-community frontier: Indigenous forests under communal management at Vondo and Xanthia, South Africa. J. Sustain. For. 33, 757–775 (2014).
Google Scholar 
43.Xiao, Q., Gao, Y., Hu, D., Tan, H. & Wang, T. Assessment of the interactions between economic growth and industrial wastewater discharges using co-integration analysis: A case study for China’s Hunan Province. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 8, 2937–2950 (2011).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
44.Sun, Q., Miao, C., Qiao, Y. & Duan, Q. The nonstationary impact of local temperature changes and ENSO on extreme precipitation at the global scale. Clim. Dyn. 49, 4281–4292 (2017).
Google Scholar 
45.Cao, S., Chen, L., Xu, C. & Liu, Z. Impact of three soil types on afforestation in China’s Loess Plateau: Growth and survival of six tree species and their effects on soil properties. Landsc. Urban Plan. 83, 208–217 (2007).
Google Scholar 
46.Setten, G. & Brown, K. M. Ecosystem services as an integrative framework: What is the potential? Land Use Policy 75, 549–556 (2018).
Google Scholar 
47.Arroyo-Vargas, P., Fuentes-Ramírez, A., Muys, B. & Pauchard, A. Impacts of fire severity and cattle grazing on early plant dynamics in old-growth Araucaria-Nothofagus forests. For. Ecosyst. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40663-019-0202-2 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
48.Paudel, S. & Sah, J. P. Effects of different management practices on stand composition and species diversity in subtropical forests in Nepal: Implications of community participation in biodiversity conservation. J. Sustain. For. 34, 738–760 (2015).
Google Scholar 
49.Su, L., Miao, C., Borthwick, A. G. L. & Duan, Q. Wavelet-based variability of Yellow River discharge at 500-, 100-, and 50-year timescales. Gondwana Res. 49, 94–105 (2017).ADS 

Google Scholar 
50.Enquist, B. J., Abraham, A. J., Harfoot, M. B. J., Malhi, Y. & Doughty, C. E. The megabiota are disproportionately important for biosphere functioning. Nat. Commun. 11, 699 (2020).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
51.Schuldt, A. et al. Multiple plant diversity components drive consumer communities across ecosystems. Nat. Commun. 10, 1460 (2019).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
52.Miao, C., Sun, Q., Duan, Q. & Wang, Y. Joint analysis of changes in temperature and precipitation on the Loess Plateau during the period 1961–2011. Clim. Dyn. 47, 3221–3234 (2016).
Google Scholar 
53.Zhang, J. et al. Divergent responses of sympatric species to livestock encroachment at fine spatiotemporal scales. Biol. Conserv. 209, 119–129 (2017).
Google Scholar 
54.Cao, S., Liu, Y., Su, W., Zheng, X. & Yu, Z. The net ecosystem services value in mainland China. Sci. China Earth Sci. 61, 595–603 (2018).ADS 

Google Scholar 
55.Waiswa, D., Stern, M. J. & Prisley, S. P. Drivers of deforestation in the Lake Victoria crescent, Uganda. J. Sustain. For. 34, 259–275 (2015).
Google Scholar 
56.Xiao, Q. & Hu, D. Dynamic characteristics of a water resource structure in an urban ecological system: Structure modelling based on input–occupancy–output technology. J. Clean. Prod. 153, 548–557 (2017).
Google Scholar  More

1.Flemming, H. C. & Wuertz, S. Bacteria and archaea on Earth and their abundance in biofilms. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 17, 247–260 (2019).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
2.Hou, Q. & Kolodkin-Gal, I. Harvesting the complex pathways of antibiotic production and resistance of soil bacilli for optimizing plant microbiome. FEMS Microbiol Ecol., https://doi.org/10.1093/femsec/fiaa142 (2020).3.Frost, I. et al. Cooperation, competition and antibiotic resistance in bacterial colonies. ISME J. 12, 1582–1593 (2018).MathSciNet 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
4.Niehus, R. & Mitri, S. Handling unpredictable ecosystems. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2, 1207–1208 (2018).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
5.Cordero, O. X. et al. Ecological populations of bacteria act as socially cohesive units of antibiotic production and resistance. Science 337, 1228–1231 (2012).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
6.Zhu, H., Sandiford, S. K. & van Wezel, G. P. Triggers and cues that activate antibiotic production by actinomycetes. J. Ind. Microbiol Biotechnol. 41, 371–386 (2014).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
7.Arakawa, K. Manipulation of metabolic pathways controlled by signaling molecules, inducers of antibiotic production, for genome mining in Streptomyces spp. Antonie Van. Leeuwenhoek 111, 743–751 (2018).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
8.Cornforth, D. M. & Foster, K. R. Competition sensing: the social side of bacterial stress responses. Nat. Rev. Microbiol 11, 285–293 (2013).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
9.Westhoff, S., Kloosterman, A. M., van Hoesel, S. F. A., van Wezel, G. P. & Rozen, D. E. Competition sensing changes antibiotic production in streptomyces. mBio. 12, https://doi.org/10.1128/mBio.02729-20 (2021).10.Hou, Q. et al. Weaponizing volatiles to inhibit competitor biofilms from a distance. NPJ Biofilms Microbiomes 7, 2 (2021).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
11.Shank, E. A. Considering the lives of microbes in microbial communities. mSystems 3, https://doi.org/10.1128/mSystems.00155-17 (2018).12.Shank, E. A. et al. Interspecies interactions that result in Bacillus subtilis forming biofilms are mediated mainly by members of its own genus. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108, E1236–E1243 (2011).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
13.Lyons, N. A., Kraigher, B., Stefanic, P., Mandic-Mulec, I. & Kolter, R. A combinatorial kin discrimination system in Bacillus subtilis. Curr. Biol. 26, 733–742 (2016).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
14.Stefanic, P., Kraigher, B., Lyons, N. A., Kolter, R. & Mandic-Mulec, I. Kin discrimination between sympatric Bacillus subtilis isolates. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, 14042–14047 (2015).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
15.Kalamara, M., Spacapan, M., Mandic-Mulec, I. & Stanley-Wall, N. R. Social behaviours by Bacillus subtilis: quorum sensing, kin discrimination and beyond. Mol. Microbiol. 110, 863–878 (2018).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
16.Harris, K. D. & Kolodkin-Gal, I. Applying the handicap principle to biofilms: condition-dependent signalling in Bacillus subtilis microbial communities. Environ. Microbiol., https://doi.org/10.1111/1462-2920.14497 (2018).17.Dorrestein, P. C. & Kelleher, N. L. Dissecting non-ribosomal and polyketide biosynthetic machineries using electrospray ionization Fourier-Transform mass spectrometry. Nat. Prod. Rep. 23, 893–918 (2006).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
18.Bloudoff, K. & Schmeing, T. M. Structural and functional aspects of the nonribosomal peptide synthetase condensation domain superfamily: discovery, dissection and diversity. Biochim Biophys. Acta Proteins Proteom. 1865, 1587–1604 (2017).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
19.Butcher, R. A. et al. The identification of bacillaene, the product of the PksX megacomplex in Bacillus subtilis. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 104, 1506–1509 (2007).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
20.Tsuge, K., Ano, T. & Shoda, M. Isolation of a gene essential for biosynthesis of the lipopeptide antibiotics plipastatin B1 and surfactin in Bacillus subtilis YB8. Arch. Microbiol. 165, 243–251 (1996).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
21.Coutte, F. et al. Effect of pps disruption and constitutive expression of srfA on surfactin productivity, spreading and antagonistic properties of Bacillus subtilis 168 derivatives. J. Appl Microbiol. 109, 480–491 (2010).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
22.Hilton, M. D., Alaeddinoglu, N. G. & Demain, A. L. Synthesis of bacilysin by Bacillus subtilis branches from prephenate of the aromatic amino acid pathway. J. Bacteriol. 170, 482–484 (1988).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
23.Zheng, G., Hehn, R. & Zuber, P. Mutational analysis of the sbo-alb locus of Bacillus subtilis: identification of genes required for subtilosin production and immunity. J. Bacteriol. 182, 3266–3273 (2000).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
24.De Gonzalo, C. V. G., Zhu, L. Y., Oman, T. J. & van der Donk, W. A. NMR structure of the S-linked glycopeptide sublancin 168. Acs Chem. Biol. 9, 796–801 (2014).
Google Scholar 
25.Ongena, M. & Jacques, P. Bacillus lipopeptides: versatile weapons for plant disease biocontrol. Trends Microbiol. 16, 115–125 (2008).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
26.Magnuson, R., Solomon, J. & Grossman, A. D. Biochemical and genetic characterization of a competence pheromone from B. subtilis. Cell 77, 207–216 (1994).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
27.Nakano, M. M. et al. Srfa is an operon required for surfactin production, competence development, and efficient sporulation in Bacillus-Subtilis. J. Bacteriol. 173, 1770–1778 (1991).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
28.Danevcic, T. et al. Surfactin facilitates horizontal gene transfer in Bacillus subtilis. Front. Microbiol. 12, doi:ARTN 657407 https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2021.657407 (2021).29.Kluge, B., Vater, J., Salnikow, J. & Eckart, K. Studies on the biosynthesis of surfactin, a lipopeptide antibiotic from Bacillus-Subtilis Atcc-21332. Febs Lett. 231, 107–110 (1988).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
30.Gonzalez, D. J. et al. Microbial competition between Bacillus subtilis and Staphylococcus aureus monitored by imaging mass spectrometry. Microbiology 157, 2485–2492 (2011).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
31.Rosenberg, G. et al. Not so simple, not so subtle: the interspecies competition between Bacillus simplex and Bacillus subtilis and its impact on the evolution of biofilms. NPJ Biofilms Microbiomes 2, 15027 (2016).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
32.Falardeau, J., Wise, C., Novitsky, L. & Avis, T. J. Ecological and mechanistic insights into the direct and indirect antimicrobial properties of Bacillus subtilis lipopeptides on plant pathogens. J. Chem. Ecol. 39, 869–878 (2013).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
33.Hoe, B. C., Gorzelnik, K. V., Yang, J. Y., Hendricks, N. & Dorrestein, P. C. Enzymatic resistance to the lipopeptide surfactin as identi fi ed through imaging mass spectrometry of bacterial competition. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1205586109/-/DCSupplemental.www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1205586109 (2012).34.Watrous, J. et al. Mass spectral molecular networking of living microbial colonies. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109, E1743–E1752 (2012).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
35.Hu, F. X., Liu, Y. Y. & Li, S. Rational strain improvement for surfactin production: enhancing the yield and generating novel structures. Microbial Cell Factor. 18, https://doi.org/10.1186/s12934-019-1089-x (2019).36.Grau, A., Go, J. C. & Ortiz, A. A study on the interactions of surfactin with phospholipid vesicles. Biochim. Biophys. Acta. 1418, 307–319 (1999).37.Straight, P. D., Fischbach, M. A., Walsh, C. T., Rudner, D. Z. & Kolter, R. A singular enzymatic megacomplex from Bacillus subtilis. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 104, 305–310 (2007).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
38.Vargas-Bautista, C., Rahlwes, K. & Straight, P. Bacterial competition reveals differential regulation of the pks genes by Bacillus subtilis. J. Bacteriol. 196, 717–728 (2014).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
39.Rajavel, M., Mitra, A. & Gopal, B. Role of Bacillus subtilis BacB in the synthesis of bacilysin. J. Biol. Chem. 284, 31882–31892 (2009).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
40.Chen, X. H. et al. Difficidin and bacilysin produced by plant-associated Bacillus amyloliquefaciens are efficient in controlling fire blight disease. J. Biotechnol. 140, 38–44 (2009).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
41.Wu, L. M. et al. Difficidin and bacilysin from Bacillus amyloliquefaciens FZB42 have antibacterial activity against Xanthomonas oryzae rice pathogens. Sci. Rep. 5, https://doi.org/10.1038/srep12975 (2015).42.Inaoka, T., Takahashi, K., Ohnishi-Kameyama, M., Yoshida, M. & Ochi, K. Guanine nucleotides guanosine 5’-diphosphate 3’-diphosphate and GTP co-operatively regulate the production of an antibiotic bacilysin in Bacillus subtilis. J. Biol. Chem. 278, 2169–2176 (2003).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
43.Rapp, C., Jung, G., Katzer, W. & Loeffler, W. Chlorotetain from Bacillus-Subtilis, an antifungal dipeptide with an unusual chlorine-containing amino-acid. Angew. Chem. Int Ed. 27, 1733–1734 (1988).
Google Scholar 
44.Phister, T. G., O’Sullivan, D. J. & McKay, L. L. Identification of bacilysin, chlorotetaine, and iturin a produced by Bacillus sp. strain CS93 isolated from pozol, a Mexican fermented maize dough. Appl Environ. Microbiol 70, 631–634 (2004).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
45.Tsuge, K., Ano, T., Hirai, M., Nakamura, Y. & Shoda, M. The genes degQ, pps, and lpa-8 (sfp) are responsible for conversion of Bacillus subtilis 168 to plipastatin production. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 43, 2183–2192 (1999).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
46.Msadek, T., Kunst, F., Klier, A. & Rapoport, G. DegS-DegU and ComP-ComA modulator-effector pairs control expression of the Bacillus subtilis pleiotropic regulatory gene degQ. J. Bacteriol. 173, 2366–2377 (1991).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
47.Verhamme, D. T., Kiley, T. B. & Stanley-Wall, N. R. DegU co-ordinates multicellular behaviour exhibited by Bacillus subtilis. Mol. Microbiol. 65, 554–568 (2007).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
48.Comella, N. & Grossman, A. D. Conservation of genes and processes controlled by the quorum response in bacteria: characterization of genes controlled by the quorum-sensing transcription factor ComA in Bacillus subtilis. Mol. Microbiol. 57, 1159–1174 (2005).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
49.Wolf, D. et al. The quorum-sensing regulator ComA from Bacillus subtilis activates transcription using topologically distinct DNA motifs. Nucleic Acids Res. 44, 2160–2172 (2016).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
50.Koroglu, T. E., Ogulur, I., Mutlu, S., Yazgan-Karatas, A. & Ozcengiz, G. Global regulatory systems operating in Bacilysin biosynthesis in Bacillus subtilis. J. Mol. Microbiol Biotechnol. 20, 144–155 (2011).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
51.Ceyhan, D. I., Celekli, A. & Can, C. Relationship between soil composition, diversity and antifungal properties of Bacillus spp. isolated from southeastern Anatolia. Biotechnol. Biotec. Eq. 33, 170–177 (2019).CAS 

Google Scholar 
52.Saxena, A. K., Kumar, M., Chakdar, H., Anuroopa, N. & Bagyaraj, D. J. Bacillus species in soil as a natural resource for plant health and nutrition. J. Appl. Microbiol. 128, 1583–1594 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
53.Arnaouteli, S., Bamford, N. C., Stanley-Wall, N. R. & Kovacs, A. T. Bacillus subtilis biofilm formation and social interactions. Nat. Rev. Microbiol., https://doi.org/10.1038/s41579-021-00540-9 (2021).54.Dergham, Y. et al. Comparison of the genetic features involved in Bacillus subtilis biofilm formation using multi-culturing approaches. Microorganisms 9, https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms9030633 (2021).55.Oppenheimer-Shaanan, Y. et al. Spatio-temporal assembly of functional mineral scaffolds within microbial biofilms. NPJ Biofilms Microbiomes 2, 15031 (2016).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
56.Barabesi, C. et al. Bacillus subtilis gene cluster involved in calcium carbonate biomineralization. J. Bacteriol. 189, 228–235 (2007).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
57.Marvasi, M., Visscher, P. T., Perito, B., Mastromei, G. & Casillas-Martinez, L. Physiological requirements for carbonate precipitation during biofilm development of Bacillus subtilis etfA mutant. FEMS Microbiol Ecol. 71, 341–350 (2010).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
58.Richter, M. & Rossello-Mora, R. Shifting the genomic gold standard for the prokaryotic species definition. P Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106, 19126–19131 (2009).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
59.Goldoni, M. & Johansson, C. A mathematical approach to study combined effects of toxicants in vitro: Evaluation of the Bliss independence criterion and the Loewe additivity model. Toxicol. Vitr. 21, 759–769 (2007).60.Fan, F. & Wood, K. V. Bioluminescent assays for high-throughput screening. Assay. Drug Dev. Technol. 5, 127–136 (2007).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
61.McLoon, A. L., Kolodkin-Gal, I., Rubinstein, S. M., Kolter, R. & Losick, R. Spatial regulation of histidine kinases governing biofilm formation in Bacillus subtilis. J. Bacteriol. 193, 679–685 (2011).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
62.Irazoki, O., Hernandez, S. B. & Cava, F. Peptidoglycan muropeptides: release, perception, and functions as signaling molecules. Front. Microbiol. 10, https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2019.00500 (2019).63.Virmani, R. et al. The Ser/Thr protein kinase PrkC imprints phenotypic memory in Bacillus anthracis spores by phosphorylating the glycolytic enzyme enolase. J. Biol. Chem. 294, 8930–8941 (2019).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
64.Lopez, D., Vlamakis, H. & Kolter, R. Generation of multiple cell types in Bacillus subtilis. FEMS Microbiol Rev. 33, 152–163 (2009).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
65.Libby, E. A., Goss, L. A. & Dworkin, J. The eukaryotic-like Ser/Thr kinase PrkC regulates the essential WalRK two-component system in Bacillus subtilis. PLoS Genet. 11, e1005275 (2015).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
66.Rismondo, J., Percy, M. G. & Grundling, A. Discovery of genes required for lipoteichoic acid glycosylation predicts two distinct mechanisms for wall teichoic acid glycosylation. J. Biol. Chem. 293, 3293–3306 (2018).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
67.Audisio, M. C. Gram-positive bacteria with probiotic potential for the Apis mellifera L. Honey Bee: the experience in the Northwest of Argentina. Probiotics Antimicrob. Proteins 9, 22–31 (2017).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
68.Emmert, E. A. & Handelsman, J. Biocontrol of plant disease: a (gram-) positive perspective. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 171, 1–9 (1999).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
69.Bais, H. P., Fall, R. & Vivanco, J. M. Biocontrol of Bacillus subtilis against infection of Arabidopsis roots by Pseudomonas syringae is facilitated by biofilm formation and surfactin production. Plant Physiol. 134, 307–319 (2004).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
70.Raaijmakers, J. M., De Bruijn, I., Nybroe, O. & Ongena, M. Natural functions of lipopeptides from Bacillus and Pseudomonas: more than surfactants and antibiotics. FEMS Microbiol. Rev. 34, 1037–1062 (2010).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
71.Gibbs, K. A., Urbanowski, M. L. & Greenberg, E. P. Genetic determinants of self identity and social recognition in bacteria. Science 321, 256–259 (2008).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
72.Wenren, L. M., Sullivan, N. L., Cardarelli, L., Septer, A. N. & Gibbs, K. A. Two independent pathways for self-recognition in Proteus mirabilis are linked by type VI-dependent export. mBio. 4, https://doi.org/10.1128/mBio.00374-13 (2013).73.Hou, Q. & Kolodkin-Gal, I. Harvesting the complex pathways of antibiotic production and resistance of soil bacilli for optimizing plant microbiome. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 96, https://doi.org/10.1093/femsec/fiaa142 (2020).74.Shivers, R. P. & Sonenshein, A. L. Activation of the Bacillus subtilis global regulator CodY by direct interaction with branched-chain amino acids. Mol. Microbiol. 53, 599–611 (2004).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
75.Zhang, Z. R. et al. Antibiotic production in Streptomyces is organized by a division of labor through terminal genomic differentiation. Sci. Adv. 6, https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aay5781 (2020).76.Vollmer, W., Blanot, D. & de Pedro, M. A. Peptidoglycan structure and architecture. FEMS Microbiol Rev. 32, 149–167 (2008).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
77.Bhavsar, A. P. & Brown, E. D. Cell wall assembly in Bacillus subtilis: how spirals and spaces challenge paradigms. Mol. Microbiol. 60, 1077–1090 (2006).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
78.Korgaonkar, A., Trivedi, U., Rumbaugh, K. P. & Whiteley, M. Community surveillance enhances Pseudomonas aeruginosa virulence during polymicrobial infection. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110, 1059–1064 (2013).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
79.Korgaonkar, A. K. & Whiteley, M. Pseudomonas aeruginosa enhances production of an antimicrobial in response to N-acetylglucosamine and peptidoglycan. J. Bacteriol. 193, 909–917 (2011).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
80.Sicard, J. F. et al. N-Acetyl-glucosamine influences the biofilm formation of Escherichia coli. Gut Pathog. 10, 26 (2018).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
81.Aliashkevich, A., Alvarez, L. & Cava, F. New insights into the mechanisms and biological roles of D-amino acids in complex eco-systems. Front. Microbiol. 9, 683 (2018).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
82.Rigali, S. et al. Feast or famine: The global regulator DasR links nutrient stress to antibiotic production by Streptomyces. EMBO Rep. 9, 670–675 (2008).83.Vollmer, W. Structural variation in the glycan strands of bacterial peptidoglycan. FEMS Microbiol Rev. 32, 287–306 (2008).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
84.Kim, S. J., Chang, J. & Singh, M. Peptidoglycan architecture of Gram-positive bacteria by solid-state NMR. Biochim Biophys. Acta 1848, 350–362 (2015).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
85.Vetsigian, K., Jajoo, R. & Kishony, R. Structure and evolution of Streptomyces interaction networks in soil and in silico. PLoS Biol. 9, e1001184 (2011).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
86.Cuthbertson, L. & Nodwell, J. R. The TetR family of regulators. Microbiol Mol. Biol. Rev. 77, 440–475 (2013).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
87.Cava, F., de Pedro, M. A., Lam, H., Davis, B. M. & Waldor, M. K. Distinct pathways for modification of the bacterial cell wall by non-canonical D-amino acids. EMBO J. 30, 3442–3453 (2011).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
88.van der Es, D., Hogendorf, W. F., Overkleeft, H. S., van der Marel, G. A. & Codee, J. D. Teichoic acids: synthesis and applications. Chem. Soc. Rev. 46, 1464–1482 (2017).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
89.Egan, A. J. F., Errington, J. & Vollmer, W. Regulation of peptidoglycan synthesis and remodelling. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 18, 446–460 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
90.Dubnau, D. Genetic competence in Bacillus subtilis. Microbiol Rev. 55, 395–424 (1991).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
91.Stefanic, P. et al. Kin discrimination promotes horizontal gene transfer between unrelated strains in Bacillus subtilis. Nat. Commun. 12, 3457 (2021).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
92.Salvadori, G., Junges, R., Morrison, D. A. & Petersen, F. C. Competence in Streptococcus pneumoniae and close commensal relatives: mechanisms and implications. Front. Cell Infect. Microbiol. 9, 94 (2019).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
93.Jowett, G. H. Statistical-methods for research workers – Fisher, Ra. R. Stat. Soc. C.-Appl. 5, 68–70 (1956).
Google Scholar 
94.Farzand, A. et al. Marker assisted detection and LC-MS analysis of antimicrobial compounds in different Bacillus strains and their antifungal effect on Sclerotinia sclerotiorum. Biol. Control 133, 91–102 (2019).CAS 

Google Scholar 
95.Paksanont, S. et al. Effect of temperature on Burkholderia pseudomallei growth, proteomic changes, motility and resistance to stress environments. Sci. Rep. 8, 9167 (2018).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
96.Andreevskaya, M. et al. Food spoilage-associated Leuconostoc, Lactococcus, and Lactobacillus species display different survival strategies in response to competition. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 84, https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.00554-18 (2018).97.Ju, S. Y. et al. Isolation and optimal fermentation condition of the Bacillus subtilis Subsp. natto strain WTC016 for nattokinase production. Fermentation-Basel 5, https://doi.org/10.3390/fermentation5040092 (2019).98.Mouloud, G., Daoud, H., Bassem, J., Atef, I. & Hani, B. New bacteriocin from Bacillus clausii strainGM17: purification, characterization, and biological activity. Appl. Biochem. Biotech. 171, 2186–2200 (2013).CAS 

Google Scholar  More

1.Eisner, R., Seabrook, L. M. & McAlpine, C. A. Are changes in global oil production influencing the rate of deforestation and biodiversity loss?. Biol. Conserv. 196, 147–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2016.02.017 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
2.Fahrig, L. Effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 34, 487–515. https://doi.org/10.1146/132419 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
3.Pfeifer, M. et al. Creation of forest edges has a global impact on forest vertebrates. Nature 551, 187–191. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature24457 (2017).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
4.Tilman, D., May, R., Lehman, C. & Nowak, M. Habitat destruction and the extinction debt. Nature 371, 65–66. https://doi.org/10.1038/371065a0 (1994).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
5.Fisher, J. T. & Burton, C. A. Wildlife winners and losers in an oil sands landscape. Front Ecol. Environ. https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.1807 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
6.Heim, N., Fisher, J. T., Volpe, J., Clevenger, A. P. & Paczkowski, J. Carnivore community response to anthropogenic landscape change: species-specificity foils generalizations. Landscape Ecol. 34, 2493–2507. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-019-00882-z (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
7.Pereira, H. M., Navarro, L. & Martins, I. Global biodiversity change: the bad, the good, and the unknown. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-042911-093511 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
8.Northrup, J. M., Anderson, C. R. Jr. & Wittemyer, G. Quantifying spatial habitat loss from hydrocarbon development through assessing habitat selection patterns of mule deer. Glob Change Biol. 21, 3961–3970. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13037 (2015).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
9.Holbrook, S. J. & Schmitt, R. J. The combined effects of predation risk and food reward on patch selection. Ecology 69, 125–134. https://doi.org/10.2307/1943167 (1988).Article 

Google Scholar 
10.Moody, A. L., Houston, A. I. & McNamara, J. M. Ideal free distributions under predation risk. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 38, 131–143 (1996).Article 

Google Scholar 
11.Dietz, H. & Edwards, P. J. Recognition that causal processes change during plant invasion helps explain conflicts in evidence. Ecology 87, 1359–1367 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
12.Hobbs, R. J. & Huenneke, L. F. Disturbance, diversity, and invasion: implications for conservation. Conserv. Biol. 6, 324–337 (1992).Article 

Google Scholar 
13.Van der Graaf, S., Stahl, J., Klimkowska, A. & Drent, J. P. B. Surfing on a green wave—How plant growth drives spring migration in the Barnacle Goose Branta leucopsis. Ardea -Wageningen- 94, 567 (2006).
Google Scholar 
14.Parker, I. M. et al. Impact: toward a framework for understanding the ecological effects of invaders. Biol. Invasions 1, 3–19. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010034312781 (1999).Article 

Google Scholar 
15.Pimentel, D., Zuniga, R. & Morrison, D. Update on the environmental and economic costs associated with alien-invasive species in the United States. Ecol. Econ. 52, 273–288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2004.10.002 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
16.Shackelford, N. et al. Primed for change: developing ecological restoration for the 21st Century. Restor. Ecol. 21, 297–304. https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.12012 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
17.Pickell, P. D., Pickell, P. D., Andison, D. W., Coops, N. C. & Gergel, S. E. The spatial patterns of anthropogenic disturbance in the western Canadian boreal forest following oil and gas development. Can. J. For. Res. 45, 732–743. https://doi.org/10.1139/cjfr-2014-0546 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
18.Fisher, J. T. & Wilkinson, L. The response of mammals to forest fire and timber harvest in the North American boreal forest. Mammal Rev. 35, 51–81 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
19.Wittische, J., Heckbert, S., James, P. M. A., Burton, A. C. & Fisher, J. T. Community-level modelling of boreal forest mammal distribution in an oil sands landscape. Sci. Total Environ. 755, 142500. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.142500 (2021).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
20.Hewitt, D. G. Biology and management of white-tailed deer (CRC Press, Boca Raton, 2011).Book 

Google Scholar 
21.McCabe, R. E. & McCabe, T. R. in White tailed deer: ecology and management Ch. Chapter 2, 19–72 (Stackpole, A Wildlife Management Institute Book, 1984).22.Webb, R. The range of white-tailed deer in Alberta (Alberta Fish and Wildlife Division Edmonton, Alberta, 1967).
Google Scholar 
23.Dawe, K. L. & Boutin, S. Climate change is the primary driver of white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) range expansion at the northern extent of its range; land use is secondary. Ecol. Evol. 6, 6435–6451. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.2316 (2016).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
24.DeCesare, N. J., Hebblewhite, M., Robinson, H. S. & Musiani, M. Endangered, apparently: the role of apparent competition in endangered species conservation. Anim. Conserv. 13, 353–362. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-1795.2009.00328.x (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
25.Latham, A. D. M., Latham, M. C., McCutchen, N. A. & Boutin, S. Invading white-tailed deer change wolf-caribou dynamics in northeastern Alberta. J. Wildl. Manag. 75, 204–212. https://doi.org/10.1002/jwmg.28 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
26.Latham, A. D. M., Latham, M. C., Boyce, M. C. & Boutin, S. Movement responses by wolves to industrial linear features and their effect on woodland caribou in northeastern Alberta. Ecol. Appl. 21, 11 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
27.Fisher, J. T., Burton, A. C., Nolan, L. & Roy, L. Influences of landscape change and winter severity on invasive ungulate persistence in the Nearctic boreal forest. Sci. Rep. 10, 8742. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-65385-3 (2020).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
28.Dabros, A., Pyper, M. & Castilla, G. Seismic lines in the boreal and arctic ecosystems of North America: environmental impacts, challenges, and opportunities. Environ. Rev. 26, 214–229. https://doi.org/10.1139/er-2017-0080 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
29.Dickie, M., Serrouya, R., McNay, R. S., Boutin, S. & du Toit, J. Faster and farther: wolf movement on linear features and implications for hunting behaviour. J. Appl. Ecol. 54, 253–263. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12732 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
30.Finnegan, L., MacNearney, D. & Pigeon, K. E. Divergent patterns of understory forage growth after seismic line exploration: implications for caribou habitat restoration. For. Ecol. Manag. 409, 634–652. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2017.12.010 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
31.Prokopenko, C. M., Boyce, M. S., Avgar, T. & Tulloch, A. Characterizing wildlife behavioural responses to roads using integrated step selection analysis. J. Appl. Ecol. 54, 470–479. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12768 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
32.Waring, G. H., Griffis, J. L. & Vaughn, M. E. White-tailed deer roadside behavior, wildlife warning reflectors, and highway mortality. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 29, 215–223. https://doi.org/10.1016/0168-1591(91)90249-W (1991).Article 

Google Scholar 
33.Bowman, J., Ray, J. C., Magoun, A. J., Johnson, D. S. & Dawson, F. N. Roads, logging, and the large-mammal community of an eastern Canadian boreal forest. Can. J. Zool. 88, 454–467. https://doi.org/10.1139/z10-019 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
34.Munro, K. G., Bowman, J. & Fahrig, L. Effect of paved road density on abundance of white-tailed deer. Wildl. Res. 39, 478. https://doi.org/10.1071/wr11152 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
35.Fisher, J. T. & Burton, A. C. Spatial structure of reproductive success infers mechanisms of ungulate invasion in Nearctic boreal landscapes. Ecol. Evol. 11, 900–911. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.7103 (2021).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
36.Kie, J. G. Optimal foraging and risk of predation effects on behavior and social structure in ungulates. J. Mammal. 80, 1114–1129 (1999).Article 

Google Scholar 
37.Brown, J. S., Laundré, J. W. & Gurung, M. The ecology of fear: optimal foraging, game theory, and trophic interactions. J. Mammal. 80, 385–399. https://doi.org/10.2307/1383287 (1999).Article 

Google Scholar 
38.Kittle, A. M., Fryxell, J. M., Desy, G. E. & Hamr, J. The scale-dependent impact of wolf predation risk on resource selection by three sympatric ungulates. Oecologia 157, 163–175. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-008-1051-9 (2008).ADS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
39.Moen, A. N. Energy conservation by white-tailed deer in the winter. Ecology 57, 192–198. https://doi.org/10.2307/1936411 (1976).Article 

Google Scholar 
40.Schmidt, K. Winter ecology of nonmigratory Alpine red deer. Oecologia 95, 226–233. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00323494 (1993).ADS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
41.Kilgo, J. C., Ray, H. S., Vukovich, M., Goode, M. J. & Ruth, C. Predation by coyotes on white-tailed deer neonates in South Carolina. J. Wildl. Manag. https://doi.org/10.1002/jwmg.393 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
42.Laurent, M., Dickie, M., Becker, M., Serrouya, R. & Boutin, S. Evaluating the mechanisms of landscape change on white-tailed deer populations. J. Wildl. Manag. 85, 340–353. https://doi.org/10.1002/jwmg.21979 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
43.Schneider, R. R., Hauer, G., Adamowicz, W. L. & Boutin, S. Triage for conserving populations of threatened species: the case of woodland caribou in Alberta. Biol. Conserv. 143, 1603–1611. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2010.04.002 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
44.Kilkenny, C., Browne Wj Fau – Cuthill, I. C., Cuthill Ic Fau – Emerson, M., Emerson M Fau – Altman, D. G. & Altman, D. G. Improving bioscience research reporting: the ARRIVE guidelines for reporting animal research. PLoS biol. 8(6), e1000412 (2010).45.DelGiudice, G. D., Mangipane, B. A., Sampson, B. A. & Kochanny, C. O. Chemical immobilization, body temperature, and post-release mortality of white-tailed deer captured by clover trap and net-gun. Wildl. Soc. Bull. (1973-2006) 29, 1147–1157 (2001).
Google Scholar 
46.Droge, E., Creel, S., Becker, M. S. & M’Soka, J. Risky times and risky places interact to affect prey behaviour. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 1, 1123–1128. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-017-0220-9 (2017).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
47.Kunkel, K. E. & Mech, L. D. Wolf and bear predation on white-tailed deer fawns in northeastern Minnesota. Can. J. Zool. 72, 1557–1565 (1994).Article 

Google Scholar 
48.Latham, A., Latham, M., Knopff, K., Hebblewhite, M. & Boutin, S. Wolves, white-tailed deer, and beaver: Implications of seasonal prey switching for woodland caribou declines. Ecography https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0587.2013.00035.x (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
49.Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development. Alberta Vegetation Index. Accessed October 2016. https://geodiscover.alberta.ca/50.Manly, B., McDonald, L., Thomas, D., McDonald, T. & Erickson, W.Resource selection by animals: statistical design and analysis for field studies. Vol. 63, pp. 1-10 (Springer Science & Business Media, 2007).51.Boyce, M. S., Vernier, P. R., Nielsen, S. E. & Schmiegelow, F. K. A. Evaluating resource selection functions. Ecol. Model. 157, 281–300. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3800(02)00200-4 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
52.Hijmans, R. & van Etten, J. Raster: Geographic data analysis and modeling. CRAN R package 2 (2016).53.R: A language and environment for statistical computing. (Vienna, Austria, 2013).54.Zuur, A., Hilbe, J. & Ieno, E. A Beginner’s Guide to GLM and GLMM with R: a frequentist and Bayesian perspective for ecologists. (Highland Statistics, 2013).55.Gillies, C. S. et al. Application of random effects to the study of resource selection by animals. J. Anim. Ecol. 75, 887–898. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2656.2006.01106.x (2006).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
56.Craney, T. A. & Surles, J. G. Model-dependent variance inflation factor cutoff values. Qual. Eng. 14, 391–403. https://doi.org/10.1081/QEN-120001878 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
57.Akaike, H. Information theory and an extension of the maximum likelihood principle. Selected papers of hirotugu akaike 199–213 (Springer, New York, 1998).Book 

Google Scholar 
58.Burnham, K. P. & Anderson, D. R. Multimodel inference: understanding AIC and BIC in model selection. Sociol. Methods Res. 33, 261–304. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124104268644 (2004).MathSciNet 
Article 

Google Scholar 
59.Boulanger, Y. et al. Climate change impacts on forest landscapes along the Canadian southern boreal forest transition zone. Landscape Ecol. 32, 1415–1431. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-016-0421-7 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
60.Sulla-Menashe, D., Woodcock, C. E. & Friedl, M. A. Canadian boreal forest greening and browning trends: an analysis of biogeographic patterns and the relative roles of disturbance versus climate drivers. Environ. Res. Lett. 13, 014007. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aa9b88 (2018).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
61.St-Pierre, F., Drapeau, P. & St-Laurent, M.-H. Drivers of vegetation regrowth on logging roads in the boreal forest: Implications for restoration of woodland caribou habitat. For. Ecol. Manag. 482, 118846. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2020.118846 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
62.Berger, J. Fear, human shields and the redistribution of prey and predators in protected areas. Biol. Let. 3, 620–623. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2007.0415 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
63.Heyes, A., Leach, A. & Mason, C. F. The economics of Canadian oil sands. Rev. Environ. Econ. Policy 12, 242–263. https://doi.org/10.1093/reep/rey006 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
64.Komers, P. E. & Stanojevic, Z. Rates of disturbance vary by data resolution: implications for conservation schedules using the Alberta boreal forest as a case study. Global Change Biol. 19, 2916–2928 (2013).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
65.Hebblewhite, M. & Merrill, E. H. Trade-offs between predation risk and forage differ between migrant strategies in a migratory ungulate. Ecology 90, 3445–3454. https://doi.org/10.1890/08-2090.1 (2009).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
66.Mech, D. L. & Boitani, L. Wolves: behavior, ecology, and conservation Vol. 57 (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 2004).
Google Scholar 
67.Creel, S., Winnie, J. A., Christianson, D. & Liley, S. Time and space in general models of antipredator response: tests with wolves and elk. Anim. Behav. 76, 1139–1146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2008.07.006 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
68.Steenweg, R. et al. Scaling-up camera traps: monitoring the planet’s biodiversity with networks of remote sensors. Front. Ecol. Environ. 15, 26–34. https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.1448 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
69.Hebblewhite, M. Billion dollar boreal woodland caribou and the biodiversity impacts of the global oil and gas industry. Biol. Cons. 206, 102–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2016.12.014 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
70.Côté, S. D., Rooney, T. P., Tremblay, J.-P., Dussault, C. & Waller, D. M. Ecological impacts of deer overabundance. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 35, 113–147 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
71.McCullough, D. R. Evaluation of night spotlighting as a deer study technique. J. Wildl. Manag. 46, 963–973. https://doi.org/10.2307/3808229 (1982).Article 

Google Scholar 
72.Preston, T., Wildhaber, M., Green, N., Albers, J. & Debenedetto, G. Enumerating white-tailed deer using unmanned aerial vehicles. Wildlife Soc. Bull. https://doi.org/10.1002/wsb.1149 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
73.Parks, A. E. Provincial woodland caribou range plan. 212 (Edmonton, Alberta, 2017).74.Tattersall, E. R., Burgar, J. M., Fisher, J. T. & Burton, A. C. Boreal predator co-occurrences reveal shared use of seismic lines in a working landscape. Ecol. Evol. 10, 1678–1691. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.6028 (2020).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
75.Diaz, S. et al. Pervasive human-driven decline of life on Earth points to the need for transformative change. Science (New York N.Y.) https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aax3100 (2019).Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
76.Bayoumi, T. & Muhleisen, M. Energy, the exchange rate, and the economy: macroeconomic benefits of Canada’s oil sands production (International Monetary Fund, Washington, 2006).
Google Scholar 
77.Zhu, K., Song, Y. & Qin, C. Forest age improves understanding of the global carbon sink. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 116, 3962. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1900797116 (2019).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar  More

1.Zhang QQ, Ying GG, Pan CG, Liu YS, Zhao JL. Comprehensive evaluation of antibiotics emission and fate in the river basins of China: source analysis, multimedia modeling, and linkage to bacterial rResistance. Environ Sci Technol. 2015;49:6772–82.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
2.Zhao WX, Wang B, Yu G. Antibiotic resistance genes in China: occurrence, risk, and correlation among different parameters. Environ Sci Pollut R. 2018;25:21467–82.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
3.Han XM, Hu HW, Chen QL, Yang LY, Li HL, Zhu YG, et al. Antibiotic resistance genes and associated bacterial communities in agricultural soils amended with different sources of animal manures. Soil Biol Biochem. 2018;126:91–102.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
4.Huerta B, Marti E, Gros M, López P, Pompêo M, Armengol J, et al. Exploring the links between antibiotic occurrence, antibiotic resistance, and bacterial communities in water supply reservoirs. Sci Total Environ. 2013;456:161–70.Article 

Google Scholar 
5.Martinez JL, Sánchez MB, Martínez-Solano L, Hernandez A, Garmendia L, Fajardo A, et al. Functional role of bacterial multidrug efflux pumps in microbial natural ecosystems. Fems Microbiol Rev. 2009;33:430–49.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
6.Wright GD. The antibiotic resistome: the nexus of chemical and genetic diversity. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2007;5:175–86.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
7.Meng F, Yang S, Wang X, Chen T, Wang X, Tang X, et al. Reclamation of Chinese herb residues using probiotics and evaluation of their beneficial effect on pathogen infection. J Infect Public Health. 2017;10:749–54.Article 

Google Scholar 
8.Zhou Y, Selvam A, Wong JWC. Chinese medicinal herbal residues as a bulking agent for food waste composting. Bioresour Technol. 2018;249:182–8.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
9.Wu HW, Sun XQ, Liang BW, Chen JB, Zhou XF. Analysis of livestock and poultry manure pollution in China and its treatment and resource utilization. J Agro-Environ Sci. 2020;39:1168–76.
Google Scholar 
10.Chen J, Yu Z, Michel FC Jr., Wittum T, Morrison M. Development and application of real-time PCR assays for quantification of erm genes conferring resistance to macrolides-lincosamides-streptogramin B in livestock manure and manure management systems. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2007;73:4407–16.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
11.Duan M, Gu J, Wang X, Li Y, Zhang S, Yin Y, et al. Effects of genetically modified cotton stalks on antibiotic resistance genes, intI1, and intI2 during pig manure composting. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf. 2018;147:637–42.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
12.Cui E, Wu Y, Zuo Y, Chen H. Effect of different biochars on antibiotic resistance genes and bacterial community during chicken manure composting. Bioresour Technol. 2016;203:11–7.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
13.Ma Y, Wilson CA, Novak JT, Riffat R, Aynur S, Murthy S, Pruden A. Effect of various sludge digestion conditions on sulfonamide, macrolide, and tetracycline Resistance Genes and Class I Integrons. Environ Sci Technol. 2011;45:7855–61.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
14.Tien YC, Li B, Zhang T, Scott A, Murray R, Sabourin L, et al. Impact of dairy manure pre-application treatment on manure composition, soil dynamics of antibiotic resistance genes, and abundance of antibiotic-resistance genes on vegetables at harvest. Sci Total Environ. 2017;581-582:32–9.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
15.Zhang L, Sun XY. Effects of waste lime and Chinese medicinal herbal residue amendments on physical, chemical, and microbial properties during green waste composting. Environ Sci Pollut Res. Int. 2018;25:31381–95.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
16.Wang YQ, Wu XQ, Zhu TT, Ma QG, Chen HG. Study on utilization of solid slag compost of Chinese medicinal herbal. J Chin Medicinal Mater. 2008;31:1622–4.CAS 

Google Scholar 
17.Wu DL, Liu P, Luo YZ, Tian GM, Mahmood Q. Nitrogen transformations during co-composting of herbal residues, spent mushrooms, and sludge. J Zhejiang Univ Sci B. 2010;11:497–505.Article 

Google Scholar 
18.Ward T, Larson J, Meulemans J, Hillmann B, Lynch J, Sidiropoulos D, et al. BugBase predicts organism-level microbiome phenotypes. bioRxiv. 2017;133462.19.Chao A. Nonparametric estimation of the number of classes in a population. Scand J Stat. 1984;11:265–70.
Google Scholar 
20.Chao A, Yang MCK. Stopping rules and estimation for recapture debugging with unequal failure rates. Biometrika. 1993;80:193–201.Article 

Google Scholar 
21.Shannon CE. A mathematical theory of communication. Bell Syst Tech J. 1948;27:623–56.Article 

Google Scholar 
22.Simpson EH. Measurement of diversity. Nature 1949;163:688.Article 

Google Scholar 
23.Huang K, Xia H, Wu Y, Chen J, Cui G, Li F, et al. Effects of earthworms on the fate of tetracycline and fluoroquinolone resistance genes of sewage sludge during vermicomposting. Bioresour Technol. 2018;259:32–9.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
24.Qian X, Sun W, Gu J, Wang XJ, Sun JJ, Yin YN, et al. Variable effects of oxytetracycline on antibiotic resistance gene abundance and the bacterial community during aerobic composting of cow manure. J Hazard Mater. 2016;315:61–9.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
25.Zhang R, Gu J, Wang X, Li Y, Zhang K, Yin Y, Zhang X. Contributions of the microbial community and environmental variables to antibiotic resistance genes during co-composting with swine manure and cotton stalks. J Hazard Mater. 2018;358:82–91.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
26.Wang H, Sangwan N, Li HY, Su JQ, Oyang WY, Zhang ZJ, et al. The antibiotic resistome of swine manure is significantly altered by association with the Musca domestica larvae gut microbiome. Isme J. 2017;11:100–11.Article 

Google Scholar 
27.Li J, Xin Z, Zhang Y, Chen J, Yan J, Li H, Hu H. Long-term manure application increased the levels of antibiotics and antibiotic resistance genes in a greenhouse soil. Appl Soil Ecol. 2017;121:193–200.Article 

Google Scholar 
28.Su JQ, Wei B, Ou-Yang WY, Huang FY, Zhao Y, Xu HJ, et al. Antibiotic resistome and its association with bacterial communities during sewage sludge composting. Environ Sci Technol. 2015;49:7356–63.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
29.Li H, Duan M, Gu J, Zhang Y, Qian X, Ma J, et al. Effects of bamboo charcoal on antibiotic resistance genes during chicken manure composting. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf. 2017;140:1–6.Article 

Google Scholar 
30.Zhang J, Lin H, Ma J, Sun W, Yang Y, Zhang X. Compost-bulking agents reduce the reservoir of antibiotics and antibiotic resistance genes in manures by modifying bacterial microbiota. Sci Total Environ. 2019;649:396–404.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
31.Ghosh S, Ramsden SJ, LaPara TM. The role of anaerobic digestion in controlling the release of tetracycline resistance genes and class 1 integrons from municipal wastewater treatment plants. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2009;84:791–6.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
32.Selvam A, Xu D, Zhao Z, Wong JW. Fate of tetracycline, sulfonamide and fluoroquinolone resistance genes and the changes in bacterial diversity during composting of swine manure. Bioresour Technol. 2012;126:383–90.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
33.Antunes P, Machado J, Sousa JC, Peixe L. Dissemination of sulfonamide resistance genes (sul1, sul2, and sul3) in Portuguese Salmonella enterica strains and relation with integrons. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2005;49:836–9.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
34.Zhu YG, Johnson TA, Su JQ, Qiao M, Guo GX, Stedtfeld RD, et al. Diverse and abundant antibiotic resistance genes in Chinese swine farms. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2013;110:3435–40.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
35.Chen Q, An X, Li H, Su J, Ma Y, Zhu YG. Long-term field application of sewage sludge increases the abundance of antibiotic resistance genes in soil. Environ Int. 2016;92-93:1–10.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar  More

The GCBD is stored at figshare23. Below we describe 20 Tables (also see Fig. 3 schematic) that comprise the GCBD: (1) Site_Info_tbl, (2) Sample_Event_tbl, (3) R_Scripts_tbl, (4) Cover_tbl, (5) Bleaching_tbl, (6) Environmental_tbl, (7) Authors_LUT, (8) Bleaching_Level_LUT, (9) City_Town_Name_LUT, (10) Country_Name_LUT, (11) Data_Source_LUT, (12) Ecoregion_Name_LUT, (13) Exposure_LUT, (14) Ocean_Name_LUT, (15) Realm_Name_LUT, (16) State_Island_Province_Name_LUT, (17) Substrate_Type_LUT, (18) Relevant_Papers_tbl, (19) Severity_Code_LUT, and (20) Bleaching_Prevalence_Score_LUT, where LUT stands for look-up table.

1)

Site Information (Site_Info_tbl)
Latitude_Degrees: latitude coordinates in decimal degrees.
Longitude_Degrees: longitude coordinates in decimal degrees.
Ocean_Name: the ocean in which the sampling took place.
Realm_Name: identification of realm as defined by the Marine Ecoregions of the World (MEOW)12.
Ecoregion_Name: identification of the Ecoregions (150) as defined by Veron et al.13.
Country_Name: the country where sampling took place.
State_Island_Province_Name: the state, territory (e.g., Guam) or island group (e.g., Hawaiian Islands) where sampling took place.
City_Town_Name: the region, city, or nearest town, where sampling took place.
Site_Name: the accepted name of the site or the name given by the team that sampled the reef.
Distance_to_Shore: the distance (m) of the sampling site from the nearest land.
Exposure: a site was considered exposed if it had >20 km of fetch, if there were strong seasonal winds, or if the site faced the prevailing winds. Otherwise, the site was considered sheltered or ‘sometimes’. ‘Sometimes’ refers to a few sites with a >20 km fetch through a narrow geographic window, and therefore we considered that the site was potentially exposed during cyclone seasons. We left the category ‘sometimes’ in the database because those sites were not clearly exposed sites, nor were they clearly sheltered sites, and future researchers may be interested in temporary exposure.
Turbidity: kd490 with a 100-km buffer.
Cyclone_Frequency: number of cyclone events from 1964 to 2014.
Comments: comments of any issues with the site or additional information.

2)

Sample Event Information (Sample_Event_tbl)
Site_ID: site ID field from Site_Info_tbl.
Reef_ID: name of reef site that was adopted by sampling group (from ReefCheck).
Quadrat_No: quadrat number (from McClanahan et al.)20.
Date_Day: the date of the sampling event.
Date_Month: the month of sampling event.
Date_Year: the year of sampling event.
Depth: depth (m) of sampling site. Comments: comments of any issue or additional information of sampling event.

3)

R Code (R_Scripts_tbl)
Relevant_Papers_ID: relevant papers ID field from Relevant_Papers_tbl.
Project name: name of project associated with R code.
Paper_Title: title of paper where R code was published.
Code_Name: name of R code file.
Description: description of the R code.
Data_Source: data source ID field from Data_Source_LUT.
R_Code: attachment of R code file.
URL: hyperlink to R code or link to github.

4)

Coral Cover Information (Cover_tbl)
Sample_ID: sampled ID field from Sample_Event_tbl.
Substrate_Type: substrate type ID field from Substrate_LUT.
S1: Reef Check breaks down transects into four 20 m × 5 m segments, point data from segment one of transect.
S2: Reef Check breaks down transects into four 20 m × 5 m segments, point data from segment two of transect.
S3: Reef Check breaks down transects into four 20 m × 5 m segments, point data from segment three of transect.
S4: Reef Check breaks down transects into four 20 m × 5 m segments, point data from segment four of transect.
Perc_hardcoral: percent hard coral cover from McClanahan et al.20 data source.
Perc_macroalgae: percent macroalgae cover from McClanahan et al.20 data source.
Average_Ellipse_Transect: calculated percent hard coral cover per 10 m × 1 m transect using ellipse equation.
Average_Ellipse_Site: calculated percent hard coral cover per site using ellipse equation.
Comments: comments of any issue or additional information of sampling event

5)

Bleaching Information (Bleaching_tbl)
Sample_ID: sample ID field from Sample_Event_tbl.
Bleaching_Level: Reef Check data, coral population or coral colony.
S1: Reef Check breaks down transects into four 20 m × 5 m segments, percent bleaching from segment one of transect.
S2: Reef Check breaks down transects into four 20 m × 5 m segments, percent bleaching from segment two of transect.
S3: Reef Check breaks down transects into four 20 m × 5 m segments, percent bleaching from segment three of transect.
S4: Reef Check breaks down transects into four 20 m × 5 m segments, percent bleaching from segment four of transect.
Percent_Bleaching_RC_Old_Method: old method of determining percent bleaching from Reef_Check.
Severity_Code: coded range of bleaching severity from Donner et al.10.
Percent_Bleached: percent of coral bleaching.
Number_Bleached_colonies: number of bleached corals from McClanahan et al.20 data source.
Bleaching_intensity: from McClanahan et al.20 data source.
Bleaching_Prevalence_Score: coded range of bleaching prevalence from Safaie et al.21.

6)

Environmental Parameter Information (Environmental_tbl)
Sample_ID: sample ID field from Sample_Event_tbl.
ClimSST: CoRTAD. [Climatological Sea-Surface Temperature (SST)] based on weekly SSTs for the study time frame, created using a harmonics approach.
Temperature_ Kelvin: CoRTAD. SST in Kelvin.
Temperature_Mean: CoRTAD. Mean SST in degrees Celsius.
Temperature_Minimum: CoRTAD. Minimum SST in degrees Celsius.
Temperature_Maximum: CoRTAD. Maximum SST in degrees Celsius.
Temperature_Kelvin_Standard_Deviation: CoRTAD. Standard deviation of SST in Kelvin.
Windspeed: CoRTAD. meters per hour.
SSTA: CoRTAD. (Sea-Surface Temperature Anomaly) weekly SST minus weekly climatological SST.
SSTA_Standard_Deviation: CoRTAD. The Standard Deviation of weekly SSTA in degrees Celsius over the entire period.
SSTA_Mean: CoRTAD. The mean SSTA in degrees Celsius over the entire period.
SSTA_Minimum: CoRTAD. The minimum SSTA in degrees Celsius over the entire period.
SSTA_Maximum: CoRTAD. The maximum SSTA in degrees Celsius over the entire period.
SSTA_Frequency: CoRTAD. (Sea Surface Temperature Anomaly Frequency) number of times over the previous 52 weeks that SSTA  >  = 1 degree Celsius.
SSTA_Frequency_Standard_Deviation: CoRTAD. The standard deviation of SSTA Frequency in degrees Celsius over the entire time period of 40 years.
SSTA_FrequencyMax: CoRTAD. The maximum SSTA Frequency in degrees Celsius over the entire time period.
SSTA_FrequencyMean: CoRTAD. The mean SSTA Frequency in degrees Celsius over the entire time period of 40 years.
SSTA_DHW: CoRTAD. (Sea Surface Temperature Degree Heating Weeks) sum of previous 12 weeks when SSTA  >  = 1 degree Celsius.
SSTA_DHW_Standard_Deviation: CoRTAD. The standard deviation SSTA DHW in degrees Celsius over the entire period.
SSTA_DHWMax: CoRTAD. The maximum SSTA DHW in degrees Celsius over the entire time period of 40 years.
SSTA_DHWMean: CoRTAD. The mean SSTA DHW in degrees Celsius over the entire time period of 40 years.
TSA: CoRTAD. (Thermal Stress Anomaly) weekly SSTs minus the maximum of weekly climatological SSTs in degrees Celsius.
TSA_Standard_Deviation: CoRTAD. The standard deviation of TSA in degrees Celsius over the entire time period of 40 years.
TSA_Minimum: CoRTAD. The minimum TSA in degrees Celsius over the entire time period of 40 years.
TSA_Maximum: CoRTAD. The maximum TSA in degrees Celsius over the entire time period of 40 years.
TSA_Mean: CoRTAD. The mean TSA in degrees Celsius over the entire time period of 40 years.
TSA_Frequency: CoRTAD. The number of times over previous 52 weeks that TSA  >  = 1 degree Celsius.
TSA_Frequency_Standard_Deviation: CoRTAD. The standard deviation of frequency of TSA in degrees Celsius over the entire time period of 40 years.
TSA_FrequencyMax: CoRTAD. The maximum TSA frequency in degrees Celsius over the entire time period of 40 years.
TSA_FrequencyMean: CoRTAD. The mean TSA frequency in degrees Celsius over the entire time period of 40 years.
TSA_DHW: CoRTAD. (Thermal Stress Anomaly Degree Heating Weeks) sum of previous 12 weeks when TSA  >  = 1 degree Celsius.
TSA_DHW_Standard_Deviation: CoRTAD. The standard deviation of TSA DHW in degrees Celsius over the entire time period of 40 years.
TSA_DHWMax: CoRTAD. The maximum TSA DHW in degrees Celsius over the entire time period of 40 years.
TSA_DHWMean: CoRTAD. The mean TSA DHW in degrees Celsius over the entire time period of 40 years.

7)

Author Names (Authors_LUT)
Last_Name: author’s last name.
First_Name: author’s first name.
Middle_Initial: author’s middle initial.

8)

Bleaching Level Information (Bleaching_Level_LUT)
Bleaching_Level: Reef Check data, coral population or coral colony.

9)

City, Town Names (City_Town_Name_LUT)
City_Town_Name: the region, city, or town, where sampling took place.

10)

Country names (Country_Name_LUT)
Country_Name: name of the country where sampling took place.

11)

Data Source Information (Data_Source_LUT)
Data_Source: name of source of original data set.
Sample_Method: Description of the sampling methods used to collect the data. If more than one method was used then we stated that an amalgamation of methods were used to collect the data, and the original papers are found in “Relevant_Papers_tbl”, and can be referenced therein.

12)

Ecoregion Names (Ecoregion_Name_LUT)
Ecoregion_Name: name of Ecoregion from Veron et al.13.

13)

Exposure Type (Exposure_LUT)
Exposure_Type: site exposure to fetch.

14)

Ocean Name Information (Ocean_Name_LUT)
Ocean_Name: name of ocean where sampling took place.

15)

Name of Realm (Realm_Name_LUT)
Realm_Name: name of realm as identified by the Marine Ecoregions of the World (MEOW)12.

16)

State, Island, Province Name (State_Island_Province_Name_LUT)
State_Island_Province_Name, Name of the state, territory (e.g. Guam) or island group (e.g. Hawaiian Islands) where sampling took place.

17)

Substrate Type (Substrate_Type_LUT)
Substrate_Type: type of substrate from Reef Check data.

18)

Relevant Publications (Relevant_Papers_tbl)
Data_Source: source associated with publication.
Author_ID: author ID field from Authors_LUT.
Title: title of published work.
Journal_Name: name of publication journal.
Year_Published: year of publication.
Volume: volume number of journal.
Issue: issue number of journal.
Pages: page range of publication.
URL: hyperlink to publication.
DOI: DOI number of publication.
pdf: pdf attachment of publication.

19)

Severity Index Code (Severity_Code_LUT)
Severity_Code: coded range of bleaching severity from Donner et al.10.

20)

Bleaching Prevalence Code (Bleaching_Prevalence_Score_LUT)

Bleaching_Prevalence_Score: coded range of bleaching prevalence from Safaie et al. 21. More

Here we describe methods for the GAEZ+ 2015 Annual Crop Data, and the GAEZ+ 2015 Monthly Cropland Data. The Annual Crop Data was generated first, then the Monthly Cropland Data was calculated based on the Harvest Area results of the Annual Data (Fig. 1).Fig. 1Schematic overview of annual and monthly data production methods. The GAEZ+ 2015 products described in this paper are in dark blue boxes; publicly available data used are in light blue. Dark blue arrows indicate which data are used in each processing step, and grey arrows from steps to data show which steps result in final GAEZ+ 2015 data products. The processing steps listed here are referred to in the Methods section text.Full size imageGAEZ+ 2015 Annual Crop Data MethodsThe GEAZ+ 2015 Annual Crop Data updates the 2010 GAEZ v4 crop harvest area, yield, and production maps6,7 (identified as Theme 5 in ref. 7) using national-scale data on the change in crop harvested area and livestock numbers from 2010 to 2015, based on statistics for 160 crop groups, and cattle and buffalo, from FAOSTAT5.Three datasets were used to produce GAEZ+ 2015 Annual Crop Data:

1.

FAOSTAT crop production domain: annual, country-level data on crop harvested area (H) and crop production (P) for each crop from the FAOSTAT database (Table 1)Table 1 GAEZ and FAOSTAT crop harmonization.Full size table

2.

GAEZ v46,7 gridded global annual harvested area, yield, and production by crop for the 26 FAOSTAT crops and crop categories at 5-minute resolution

3.

Global Administrative Unit Layer (GAUL 2012)13 data. GAUL 2012 reports the fraction of each global 5-minute grid cell that falls within a given country or disputed territory. There are 275 unique global administrative units.

Step 1. Calculate crop changes from 2010 to 2015 by country:
For each country, we extracted the harvested area (H) and crop production (P) for each of the 160 FAOSTAT crop categories, c, from the FAOSTAT database. We averaged three years (2009–2011) of annual national crop harvested area data to represent 2010 national crop harvest area, H2010, and three years (2014–2016) of annual crop harvested area data to represent 2015 national crop harvest area, H2015, then calculated a ratio, rHc, of 2015 to 2010 harvested areas for each crop c in each country, and equivalently, for crop production:$$r{H}_{c}={H}_{2015}/{H}_{2010}$$
(1)
$$r{P}_{c}={P}_{2015}/{P}_{2010}$$
(2)
This results in 160 rH and rP values per country. If harvest area and production values for a particular crop are zero or unreported in the FAOSTAT data, then rHc and rPc are both set to 1.0 (i.e., no change from 2010 to 2015). Three years of data are averaged (2009 – 2011 and 2014 – 2016) to account for missing data for some country/year combinations and to avoid emphasizing reported outliers.
Step 2. Aggregate FAOSTAT-based ratios to the GAEZ crop categories:
We followed the crop aggregation methods of the GAEZ model to aggregate the FAOSTAT crop list (160 unique crops as of 2019) to 26 crops (see Table 1). For each of the 26 GAEZ crop categories, if there is more than one matching FAOSTAT crop (see Table 1) then we applied an area-weighted average (based on FAOSTAT year 2015 harvested area) of the FAOSTAT crops within each country to the rH and rP values for that crop and country. This results in 26 rH and rP values per country. There was one exception to this: the GAEZ_2010 crop category ‘fodder crops’ was an aggregate of 17 FAOSTAT crops (see Table 1) for which harvest area data are no longer reported on FAOSTAT; i.e., GAEZ_2010 had obtained FAOSTAT data on fodder crops circa 2010, but FAOSTAT no longer provides any data on fodder crops for any year. We assumed that the 2010 to 2015 fractional change in fodder crop harvest area in each country was proportional to the change in the FAOSTAT reported national herd sizes for cattle and buffalo livestock data5 for that country, following the same methodology as for crop harvested area change (see Step 2 below). This method assumes a negligible international trade of fodder crops as indicated by bilateral trade matrices available from FAOSTAT.
Step 3. Apply country-level ratios to grid cells:
Calculated country-level ratios were then applied to each grid cell k, using the GAUL_201213 definitions for which grid cells fall within which countries. Some grid cells are split between two or more countries. In this case, all model output variables for the grid cell are divided between the countries based on the fraction of grid cell area falling within the country i:$${H}_{c,2015}^{k}={H}_{c,2010}^{k}{sum }_{i},{f}_{i}^{k}r{H}_{c,i}$$
(3)
$${P}_{c,2015}^{k}={P}_{c,2010}^{k}{sum }_{i},{f}_{i}^{k}r{P}_{c,i}$$
(4)
where ({H}_{c,2015}^{k}) is the year 2015 harvested area (or production) for crop c in grid cell k; ({f}_{i}^{k}) is the fraction of country i in grid cell k, and rHc,i and rPc,i are the ratios for crop c in country i as calculated in Eqs. 1 and 2. This results in 26 H and P values per grid cell. If the sum of all crop harvest areas exceeds 99% of the grid cell area, all crop harvest areas are reduced equally to fit within 99% of the area.
Special Case: Sudan
FAOSTAT data for years before 2011 report data for Sudan, and for South Sudan and Sudan after 2011. To compute the ratios for these grid cells, we split the 2010 data for Sudan into a virtual ‘North’ Sudan and ‘South_Sudan’, using the data for the year 2012, which was reported for both countries. We then used these generated 2010 data and applied the same methodology as described above to calculate changes in harvested areas and production in all grid cells in both countries.
Special Case: Small regions and islands
Forty-nine countries – generally small regions or islands – had no data reported for crop harvested area by FAOSTAT. We assumed that there was no change in crop harvested area for the grid cells in these countries. Note that many may have had zero ha as previously-reported crop area in GAEZ v4. These countries are (the number following each region is the region’s number in ADM0_CODE in the GAUL_2012 data13):Anguilla (9), Aruba (14), Ashmore_and_Cartier_Islands (16), Azores_Islands (74578), Baker_Island (22), Bassas_da_India (25), Bird_Island (32), Bouvet_Island (36), British_Indian_Ocean_Territory (38), Christmas_Island (54), Clipperton_Island (55), Cocos (Keeling)_Islands (56), Europa_Island (80), French_Southern_and_Antarctic_Territories (88), Glorioso_Island (96), Greenland (98), Guernsey (104), Heard_Island_and_McDonald_Islands (109), Howland_Island (112), Isle_of_Man (120), Jarvis_Island (127), Jersey (128), Johnston_Atoll (129), Juan_de_Nova_Island (131), Kingman_Reef (134), Kuril_islands (136), Madeira_Islands (151), Mayotte (161), Midway_Island (164), Navassa_Island (174), Netherlands_Antilles (176), Norfolk_Island (184), Northern_Mariana_Islands (185), Palmyra_Atoll (190), Paracel_Islands (193), Pitcairn (197), Saint_Helena (207), Scarborough_Reef (216), Senkaku_Islands (218), South_Georgia_and_the_South_Sandwich_Islands (228), Spratly_Islands (230), Svalbard_and_Jan_Mayen_Islands (234), Tromelin_Island (247), Turks_and_Caicos_Islands (251), United_States_Virgin_Islands (258), Wake_Island (265), Gibraltar (95), Holy_See (110), Liechtenstein (146).
Special Case: Disputed Areas
Some grid cells in the GAUL_201213 cell-table database are assigned to nine disputed areas, rather than to specific countries. We assumed that there was no change in crop harvested area or production from 2010 to 2015 for grid cells these disputed areas. These areas are (the number following each region is the region’s number of the ADM0_CODE in the GAUL_201213 data):Abyei (102), Aksai_Chin (2), Arunachal_Pradesh (15), China/India (52), Hala’ib_Triangle (40760), Ilemi_Triangle (61013), Jammu_and_Kashmir (40781), Ma’tan_al-Sarra (40762), Falkland_Islands_(Malvinas) (81).
Step 4. Compute 2015 crop yields:
Crop yields were computed for each crop, c, and grid cell, k, as the ratio of crop production to crop harvest area (if harvest area, Hc,k,2015, is zero, then yield, Yc,k,2015, is set to zero):$${Y}_{c,k,2015}={P}_{c,k,2015}/{H}_{c,k,2015}$$
(5)
The resulting gridded global data are:

A.

GAEZ+ 2015 Crop Harvest Area14

B.

GAEZ+ 2015 Crop Yield15

C.

GAEZ+ 2015 Crop Production16

This new data product consists of 156 data files in geotiff format, one rainfed harvested area file and one irrigated harvested area file for each crop harvest area (1000 ha (107 m2) per 5-minute grid cell), crop production (1000 tonnes (106 kg) per 5-minute grid cell), and crop yield (tonnes per ha (10−1 kg m−2) per 5-minute grid cell), for each of the 26 GAEZ crops or crop categories in Table 1.GAEZ+ 2015 monthly cropland area methodsTwo datasets were used to produce monthly cropland area by crop and by irrigated vs rainfed management. These are:

1.

GAEZ+ 2015 Annual Harvested Area14 (as developed above)

2.

MIRCA2000 cropland area4

Step 5. Harmonize the GAEZ+ 2015 and MIRCA2000 crop lists
The MIRCA20004 cropland product provides monthly growing area grids (gridded physical cropland area) for 26 irrigated and rainfed crops and crop categories, as well as cropping calendars that identify the planting month and harvesting month for each crop (via ‘subcrops’ – see below). However, the MIRCA2000 crop list is not the same as the GAEZ+ 2015 crop list; we matched each crop type in the GAEZ+ 2015 crop list to a crop type in the MIRCA2000 crop list to enable the application of MIRCA2000 crop calendars to GAEZ+ 2015 crops (Table 2). Out of the 26 GAEZ+ 2015 crops, 18 had clear 1:1 matching crop categories within MIRCA2000. The remaining 8 crops were matched based on general crop characteristics, i.e., annual vs. perennial, or to unmatched MIRCA2000 cereals.Table 2 List of GAEZ crop categories used in all GAEZ+ 2015 products, as well as the matching between GAEZ+ 2015 crops and MIRCA20004 crop categories for the purposes of producing GAEZ+ 2015 monthly cropland data.Full size tableAn essential component of the MIRCA2000 cropland dataset is the identification of subcrop categories within each crop category to split crops into areas grown in different seasons, or crops with different planting and harvesting dates within the same season. Up to 5 subcrops can be defined to represent such multi-cropping practices. Below, we use the following notation:HG = annual harvested area from the GAEZ+ 2015 product for a given cropHM = annual harvested area calculated from the MIRCA2000 data for a given cropAM,n = cropland area of MIRCA2000 crop, subcrop n, by monthAG,n = cropland area of GAEZ+ 2015 crop, subcrop n, by monthAG = cropland area of GAEZ+ 2015 crop, by month
Step 6. Apply MIRCA2000 monthly crop calendars to GAEZ+ 2015 annual data
To generate the monthly cropland physical area of GAEZ+ 2015 crops, we followed these steps for each GAEZ crop in each grid cell:

1.

For a given GAEZ crop in a given grid cell, is the area reported >0 for the matching MIRCA2000 crop?

a.

If YES, then use the MIRCA2000 data for the grid cell and crop considered.

b.

If NO, then find the closest grid cell with the matching MIRCA2000 crop category, and apply the MIRCA2000 crop rotation from that grid cell to the given crop/grid cell combination for the following steps.

2.

Does the matching MIRCA2000 crop category (Table 1) have more than 1 subcrop?

a.

If NO, then AG = HG for all months of the cropping season, as defined by the MIRCA2000 crop calendar.

b.

If YES, then for each subcrop category n, apply the ratio of AM,n/HM to HG, then sum the subcrop areas within each month such that:

$${A}_{G}=sum _{n}frac{{A}_{M,n}}{{H}_{M}}{H}_{G}$$

3.

For each month and each grid cell, check if the sum of all crops (irrigated and rainfed) is greater than the 99% of area of the grid cell. We assume that at least 1% of land must be retained as non-cropland for agricultural infrastructure such as roads, buildings, irrigation infrastructure, and other landcovers (e.g. rivers, wetlands).

a.

If NO, then no further processing is done.

b.

If YES, then reduce crop area by the excess value based on a removal order (Table 2). Rainfed crops have higher removal order numbers for the excess truncation (starting with 1) before removing irrigated crops, until the cell area is not exceeded. A large removal number (e.g., 20) indicates that the crop’s land is unlikely to be removed. Large priority numbers are given to the staple crops to ensure these important food producing lands are consistent with FAOSTAT country data.

The maximum monthly amount of physical cropland that was removed by step 3 is 711,543 ha, which is 0.05% of total global cropland physical area.The resulting global gridded data from Step 6 are monthly time series of cropland physical area by crop, subcrop, and production system, called GAEZ+_2015 Monthly Cropland Data17. Combining the MIRCA2000 crop calendar and subcrop rotation information with the GAEZ+ 2015 annual data allows for the representation of crop seasonality; e.g., Fig. 2 shows the aggregate monthly cropland physical area for Rice 1 and Rice 2 (two sub-crops of rice) over the northern hemisphere, clearly illustrating the two main rice-growing seasons.Fig. 2Aggregate monthly cropland physical area for Rice 1 and Rice 2 subcrops from monthly GAEZ+ 2015 over the northern hemisphere shows the two main rice-growing seasons. This seasonality is the result of combining GAEZ+ 2015 annual data with the MIRCA20004 crop calendars and subcrop divisions.Full size image More