Philippa Kaur

Insect extractsThai edible insects (Fig. 1) were extracted and yield of each extract is shown in Fig. 2. Hexane extracts of most insects, except for P. succincta, provided the highest yield, followed by ethanolic extracts, and aqueous extracts, respectively. The reason might be due to a high amount of fat content of insects. Since these fat components are hydrophobic, they could be extracted well using nonpolar solvent, e.g. hexane. Semi-polar solvent like ethanol could also be used to extract hydrophobic compounds but with less extraction efficacy5. Several previous studies reported that fat was abundant in biomass of insects, ranging from 4.2 to 77.2%, which was accounted for about 26.8% on average dried insects6,7.Figure 1External appearances of Thai edible insects, including (a) rice grasshopper (Euconocephalus sp.), (b) bamboo caterpillar (O. fuscidentalis), (c) house cricket (A. domesticus), (d) silkworm pupae (B. mori), (e) Bombay locust (P. succincta), and (f) giant water bug (L. indicus).Full size imageFigure 2Yields of insect extracts, including B. mori (BM), O. fuscidentalis (OF), Euconocephalus sp. (EU), P. succincta (PS), A. domesticus (AD), and L. indicus (LI). The data are expressed as mean ± SD (n = 3). The Greek alphabet letters (α, β, γ, and δ) indicate significant differences among hexane extracts, the capital letters (A, B, C, and D) indicate significant differences among ethanolic extracts, and the small case letters (a, b, and c) indicate significant differences among aqueous extracts. The data were analyzed using One-Way ANOVA followed by post hoc Tukey test (p  More

1.Weinert, L. A., Araujo-Jnr, E. V., Ahmed, M. Z. & Welch, J. J. The incidence of bacterial endosymbionts in terrestrial arthropods. Proc. R. Soc. B: Biol. Sci. 282, 20150249 (2015).
Google Scholar 
2.Werren, J. H. Biology of Wolbachia. Annu Rev. Entomol. 42, 587–609 (1997).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
3.Turelli, M. & Hoffmann, A. A. Rapid spread of an inherited incompatibility factor in California Drosophila. Nature 353, 440–442 (1991).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
4.Werren, J. H., Baldo, L. & Clark, M. E. Wolbachia: master manipulators of invertebrate biology. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 6, 741–751 (2008).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
5.Teixeira, L., Ferreira, A. & Ashburner, M. The bacterial symbiont Wolbachia induces resistance to RNA viral infections in Drosophila melanogaster. Plos Biol. 6, e2 (2008).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
6.Hedges, L. M., Brownlie, J. C., O’Neill, S. L. & Johnson, K. N. Wolbachia and virus protection in insects. Science 322, 702 (2008).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
7.Rocha, M. N. et al. Pluripotency of Wolbachia against Arboviruses: the case of yellow fever. Gates Open Res. 3, 161 (2019).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
8.Moreira, L. A. et al. A Wolbachia symbiont in Aedes aegypti limits infection with dengue, Chikungunya, and Plasmodium. Cell 139, 1268–1278 (2009).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
9.Dutra, H. L. et al. Wolbachia blocks currently circulating zika virus isolates in Brazilian Aedes aegypti mosquitoes. Cell Host Microbe 19, 771–774 (2016).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
10.Aliota, M. T. et al. The wMel strain of Wolbachia reduces transmission of chikungunya virus in Aedes aegypti. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 10, e0004677 (2016).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
11.Schmidt, T. L. et al. Local introduction and heterogeneous spatial spread of dengue-suppressing Wolbachia through an urban population of Aedes aegypti. PLoS Biol. 15, e2001894 (2017).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
12.Ryan, P. A. et al. Establishment of wMel Wolbachia in Aedes aegypti mosquitoes and reduction of local dengue transmission in Cairns and surrounding locations in northern Queensland, Australia. Gates Open Res. 3, 1547 (2020).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
13.Indriani, C. et al. Reduced dengue incidence following deployments of Wolbachia-infected Aedes aegypti in Yogyakarta, Indonesia: a quasi-experimental trial using controlled interrupted time series analysis. Gates Open Res. 4, 50 (2020).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
14.Zug, R. & Hammerstein, P. Bad guys turned nice? A critical assessment of Wolbachia mutualisms in arthropod hosts. Biol. Rev. Camb. Philos. Soc. 90, 89–111 (2015).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
15.Shi, M. et al. No detectable effect of Wolbachia wMel on the prevalence and abundance of the RNA virome of Drosophila melanogaster. Proc. Biol. Sci. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2018.1165 (2018).16.Webster, C. L. et al. The discovery, distribution, and evolution of viruses associated with Drosophila melanogaster. PLoS Biol. 13, e1002210 (2015).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
17.Pimentel, A. C., Cesar, C. S., Martins, M. & Cogni, R. The antiviral effects of the symbiont bacteria Wolbachia in insects. Front Immunol. 11, 626329 (2021).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
18.Kriesner, P., Hoffmann, A. A., Lee, S. F., Turelli, M. & Weeks, A. R. Rapid sequential spread of two Wolbachia variants in Drosophila simulans. PLoS Pathog. 9, e1003607 (2013).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
19.Weeks, A. R., Turelli, M., Harcombe, W. R., Reynolds, K. T. & Hoffmann, A. A. From parasite to mutualist: rapid evolution of Wolbachia in natural populations of Drosophila. PLoS Biol. 5, e114 (2007).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
20.Hoffmann, A. A. & Turelli, M. Unidirectional incompatibility in Drosophila simulans: inheritance, geographic variation and fitness effects. Genetics 119, 435–444 (1988).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
21.Cross, S. T. et al. Partitiviruses infecting Drosophila melanogaster and Aedes aegypti exhibit efficient biparental vertical transmission. J. Virol. https://doi.org/10.1128/jvi.01070-20 (2020).22.Webster, C. L., Longdon, B., Lewis, S. H. & Obbard, D. J. Twenty-five new viruses associated with the Drosophilidae (Diptera). Evolut. Bioinforma. online 12, 13–25 (2016).CAS 

Google Scholar 
23.Jousset, F. X. & Plus, N. Study of the vertical transmission and horizontal transmission of “Drosophila melanogaster” and “Drosophila immigrans” picornavirus (author’s transl). Ann. Microbiol. 126, 231–249 (1975).CAS 

Google Scholar 
24.Jousset, F. X., Plus, N., Croizier, G. & Thomas, M. Existence in Drosophila of 2 groups of picornavirus with different biological and serological properties. C. R. Acad. Hebd. Seances Acad. Sci. D. 275, 3043–3046 (1972).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
25.Kapun, M. et al. Genomic Analysis of European Drosophila melanogaster populations reveals longitudinal structure, continent-wide selection, and previously unknown DNA viruses. Mol. Biol. Evol. 37, 2661–2678 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
26.Medd, N. C. et al. The virome of Drosophila suzukii, an invasive pest of soft fruit. Virus Evol. 4, vey009 (2018).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
27.Longdon, B. et al. The evolution, diversity, and host associations of rhabdoviruses. Virus Evol. 1, vev014 (2015).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
28.Schoonvaere, K., Smagghe, G., Francis, F. & de Graaf, D. C. Study of the metatranscriptome of eight social and solitary wild bee species reveals novel viruses and bee parasites. Front. Microbiol. 9, 177 (2018).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
29.Pettersson, J. H., Shi, M., Eden, J. S., Holmes, E. C. & Hesson, J. C. Meta-transcriptomic comparison of the RNA viromes of the mosquito vectors Culex pipiens and Culex torrentium in Northern Europe. Viruses https://doi.org/10.3390/v11111033 (2019).30.Mahar, J. E., Shi, M., Hall, R. N., Strive, T. & Holmes, E. C. Comparative analysis of RNA virome composition in rabbits and associated ectoparasites. J. Virol. https://doi.org/10.1128/jvi.02119-19 (2020).31.Martinez, J. et al. Symbionts commonly provide broad spectrum resistance to viruses in insects: a comparative analysis of Wolbachia strains. PLoS Pathogens https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.ppat.1004369 (2014).32.Cross, S. T. et al. Galbut virus infection minimally influences Drosophila melanogaster fitness traits in a strain and sex-dependent manner. Preprint at bioRxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.05.18.444759 (2021).33.Yampolsky, L. Y., Webb, C. T., Shabalina, S. A. & Kondrashov, A. S. Rapid accumulation of a vertically transmitted parasite triggered by relaxation of natural selection among hosts. Evolut. Ecol. Res. 1, 581–589 (1999).
Google Scholar 
34.Wilfert, L. & Jiggins, F. M. The dynamics of reciprocal selective sweeps of host resistance and a parasite counter-adaptation in Drosophila. Evolution 67, 761–773 (2013).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
35.Chrostek, E., Martins, N., Marialva, M. S. & Teixeira, L. Wolbachia conferred antiviral protection is determined by developmental temperature. mBio 12, e0292320 (2021).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
36.Ortiz-Baez, A. S., Shi, M., Hoffmann, A. A. & Holmes, E. C. RNA virome diversity and Wolbachia infection in individual Drosophila simulans flies. J. Gen. Virol. 102, 001639 (2021).
Google Scholar 
37.Haine, E. R. Symbiont-mediated protection. Proc. Biol. Sci. 275, 353–361 (2008).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
38.Martinez, J. et al. Addicted? Reduced host resistance in populations with defensive symbionts. Proc. Biol. Sci. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2016.0778 (2016).39.Cogni, R. et al. Variation in Drosophila melanogaster central metabolic genes appears driven by natural selection both within and between populations. P R. Soc. B-Biol. Sci. 282, 20142688 (2015).CAS 

Google Scholar 
40.Cogni, R. et al. On the long-term stability of clines in some metabolic genes in Drosophila melanogaster. Sci. Rep. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep42766 (2017).41.Longdon, B. et al. The causes and consequences of changes in virulence following pathogen host shifts. PLoS Pathogens https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.ppat.1004728 (2015).42.Longdon, B., Hadfield, J. D., Webster, C. L., Obbard, D. J. & Jiggins, F. M. Host phylogeny determines viral persistence and replication in novel hosts. PLoS Pathog. 7, e1002260 (2011).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
43.Meyer, M. & Kircher, M. Illumina sequencing library preparation for highly multiplexed target capture and sequencing. Cold Spring Harb. Protoc. 2010, pdb.prot5448 (2010).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
44.Dobin, A. et al. STAR: ultrafast universal RNA-seq aligner. Bioinformatics 29, 15–21 (2013).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
45.Quast, C. et al. The SILVA ribosomal RNA gene database project: improved data processing and web-based tools. Nucleic Acids Res. 41, D590–D596 (2013).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
46.Langmead, B. & Salzberg, S. L. Fast gapped-read alignment with Bowtie 2. Nat. Methods 9, 357–359 (2012).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
47.Grabherr, M. G. et al. Full-length transcriptome assembly from RNA-Seq data without a reference genome. Nat. Biotechnol. 29, 644–652 (2011).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
48.Buchfink, B., Xie, C. & Huson, D. H. Fast and sensitive protein alignment using DIAMOND. Nat. Methods 12, 59–60 (2015).CAS 

Google Scholar 
49.Notredame, C., Higgins, D. G. & Heringa, J. T-Coffee: a novel method for fast and accurate multiple sequence alignment. J. Mol. Biol. 302, 205–217 (2000).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
50.Guindon, S. et al. New algorithms and methods to estimate maximum-likelihood phylogenies: assessing the performance of PhyML 3.0. Syst. Biol. 59, 307–321 (2010).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
51.Coyle, M. C., Elya, C. N., Bronski, M. & Eisen, M. B. Entomophthovirus: an insect-derived iflavirus that infects a behavior manipulating fungal pathogen of dipterans. Preprint at bioRxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/371526 (2018).52.Longdon, B. et al. Vertically transmitted rhabdoviruses are found across three insect families and have dynamic interactions with their hosts. P Roy Soc B-Biol Sci https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2016.2381 (2017).53.Untergasser, A. et al. Primer3-new capabilities and interfaces. Nucleic Acids Res. 40, e115 (2012).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
54.Ye, J. et al. Primer-BLAST: A tool to design target-specific primers for polymerase chain reaction. BMC Bioinforma. 13, 134 (2012).CAS 

Google Scholar 
55.Lefever, S., Pattyn, F., Hellemans, J. & Vandesompele, J. Single-nucleotide polymorphisms and other mismatches reduce performance of quantitative PCR assays. Clin. Chem. 59, 1470–1480 (2013).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
56.Hadfield, J. D. MCMC Methods for Multi-Response Generalized Linear Mixed Models: The MCMCglmm R Package. 2010 33, 22, (2010).57.Cogni, R., Ding, S. D., Pimentel, A. C., Day, J. P. & Jiggins, F. M. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5525967 (Zenodo 2021). More

1.Schmidt MWI, Torn MS, Abiven S, Dittmar T, Guggenberger G, Janssens IA, et al. Persistence of soil organic matter as an ecosystem property. Nature. 2011;478:49–56.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
2.Bond-Lamberty B, Bailey VL, Chen M, Gough CM, Vargas R. Globally rising soil heterotrophic respiration over recent decades. Nature. 2018;560:80–3.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
3.Bradford MA. Thermal adaptation of decomposer communities in warming soils. Front Microbiol. 2013;4:1–16.
Google Scholar 
4.Cavicchioli R, Ripple WJ, Timmis KN, Azam F, Bakken LR, Baylis M, et al. Scientists’ warning to humanity: microorganisms and climate change. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2019;17:569–86.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
5.Jansson JK, Hofmockel KS. Soil microbiomes and climate change. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2020;18:35–46.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
6.Liu L, Greaver TL. A global perspective on belowground carbon dynamics under nitrogen enrichment. Ecol Lett. 2010;13:819–28.PubMed 

Google Scholar 
7.Knicker H. Soil organic N – An under-rated player for C sequestration in soils? Soil Biol Biochem. 2011;43:1118–29.CAS 

Google Scholar 
8.Soong JL, Fuchslueger L, Marañon-Jimenez S, Torn MS, Janssens IA, Peñuelas J, et al. Microbial carbon limitation: The need for integrating microorganisms into our understanding of ecosystem carbon cycling. Glob Chang Biol. 2020;26:1953–61.
Google Scholar 
9.Mooshammer M, Wanek W, Hämmerle I, Fuchslueger L, Hofhansl F, Knoltsch A, et al. Adjustment of microbial nitrogen use efficiency to carbon:nitrogen imbalances regulates soil nitrogen cycling. Nat Commun. 2014;5:1–7.
Google Scholar 
10.Geisseler D, Horwath WR, Joergensen RG, Ludwig B. Pathways of nitrogen utilization by soil microorganisms – a review. Soil Biol Biochem. 2010;42:2058–67.CAS 

Google Scholar 
11.Wang X, Wang C, Cotrufo MF, Sun L, Jiang P, Liu Z, et al. Elevated temperature increases the accumulation of microbial necromass nitrogen in soil via increasing microbial turnover. Glob Chang Biol. 2020;26:5277–89.PubMed 

Google Scholar 
12.Simpson AJ, Simpson MJ, Smith E, Kelleher BP. Microbially derived inputs to soil organic matter: Are current estimates too low? Environ Sci Technol. 2007;41:8070–6.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
13.Kuypers MMM, Marchant HK, Kartal B. The microbial nitrogen-cycling network. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2018;16:263–76.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
14.Walker TWN, Kaiser C, Strasser F, Herbold CW, Leblans NIW, Woebken D, et al. Microbial temperature sensitivity and biomass change explain soil carbon loss with warming. Nat Climate Change. 2018;8:885–9.CAS 

Google Scholar 
15.Marañón-Jiménez S, Peñuelas J, Richter A, Sigurdsson BD, Fuchslueger L, Leblans NIW, et al. Coupled carbon and nitrogen losses in response to seven years of chronic warming in subarctic soils. Soil Biol Biochem. 2019;134:152–61.
Google Scholar 
16.Nguyen TTH, Myrold DD, Mueller RS. Distributions of extracellular peptidases across prokaryotic genomes reflect phylogeny and habitat. Front Microbiol. 2019;10:1–14.
Google Scholar 
17.Zimmerman AE, Martiny AC, Allison SD. Microdiversity of extracellular enzyme genes among sequenced prokaryotic genomes. ISME J. 2013;7:1187–99.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
18.Beier S, Bertilsson S. Bacterial chitin degradation-mechanisms and ecophysiological strategies. Front Microbiol. 2013;4:1–12.
Google Scholar 
19.Kielak AM, Cretoiu MS, Semenov AV, Sørensen SJ, Van, Elsas JD. Bacterial chitinolytic communities respond to chitin and pH alteration in soil. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2013;79:263–72.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
20.Weintraub MN, Schimel JP. Seasonal protein dynamics in Alaskan arctic tundra soils. Soil Biol Biochem. 2005;37:1469–75.CAS 

Google Scholar 
21.Boer VM, De Winde JH, Pronk JT, Piper MDW. The genome-wide transcriptional responses of Saccharomyces cerevisiae grown on glucose in aerobic chemostat cultures limited for carbon, nitrogen, phosphorus, or sulfur. J Biol Chem. 2003;278:3265–74.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
22.Kolkman A, Daran-Lapujade P, Fullaondo A, Olsthoorn MMA, Pronk JT, Slijper M, et al. Proteome analysis of yeast response to various nutrient limitations. Mol Syst Biol. 2006;2:1–16.
Google Scholar 
23.Silberbach M, Hüser A, Kalinowski J, Pühler A, Walter B, Krämer R, et al. DNA microarray analysis of the nitrogen starvation response of Corynebacterium glutamicum. J Biotechnol. 2005;119:357–67.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
24.Merrick MJ, Edwards RA. Nitrogen control in bacteria. Microbiol Rev. 1995;59:604–22.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
25.Daebeler A, Abell GCJ, Bodelier PLE, Bodrossy L, Frampton DMF, Hefting MM, et al. Archaeal dominated ammonia-oxidizing communities in Icelandic grassland soils are moderately affected by long-term N fertilization and geothermal heating. Front Microbiol. 2012;3:1–14.
Google Scholar 
26.Yeager CM, Kornosky JL, Housman DC, Grote EE, Belnap J, Kuske CR. Diazotrophic community structure and function in two successional stages of biological soil crusts from the colorado plateau and Chihuahuan Desert. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2004;70:973–83.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
27.Malik AA, Swenson T, Weihe C, Morrison EW, Martiny JBH, Brodie EL, et al. Drought and plant litter chemistry alter microbial gene expression and metabolite production. ISME J. 2020;14:2236–47.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
28.Tveit A, Schwacke R, Svenning MM, Urich T. Organic carbon transformations in high-Arctic peat soils: Key functions and microorganisms. ISME J. 2013;7:299–311.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
29.Geisen S, Tveit AT, Clark IM, Richter A, Svenning MM, Bonkowski M, et al. Metatranscriptomic census of active protists in soils. ISME J. 2015;9:2178–90.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
30.Urich T, Lanzén A, Qi J, Huson DH, Schleper C, Schuster SC. Simultaneous assessment of soil microbial community structure and function through analysis of the meta-transcriptome. PLoS ONE. 2008;3:1–13.
Google Scholar 
31.Kallenbach CM, Frey SD, Grandy AS. Direct evidence for microbial-derived soil organic matter formation and its ecophysiological controls. Nat Commun. 2016;7:1–10.
Google Scholar 
32.Walker TWN, Janssens IA, Weedon JT, Sigurdsson BD, Richter A, Peñuelas J, et al. A systemic overreaction to years versus decades of warming in a subarctic grassland ecosystem. Nat Ecol Evol. 2020;4:101–8.PubMed 

Google Scholar 
33.Sigurdsson BD, Wallander H, Gunnarsdóttir GE, Richter A, Sigurðsson P, Leblans NIW, et al. Geothermal ecosystems as natural climate change experiments: the ForHot research site in Iceland as a case study. Icelandic Agric Sci. 2016;29:53–71.
Google Scholar 
34.Söllinger A, Séneca J, Dahl MB, Prommer J, Verbruggen E, Sigurdsson BD, et al. Downregulation of the microbial protein biosynthesis machinery in response to weeks, years and decades of soil warming. 2021 Research Square preprint. https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-132190/v235.Leblans N. Natural gradients in temperature and nitrogen: Iceland represents a unique environment to clarify long-term global change effects on carbon dynamics. Joint doctoral dissertation. Antwerp University and Agricultural University of Iceland, Reykjavik, Iceland; 2016:1–229.36.Angel R, Claus P, Conrad R. Methanogenic archaea are globally ubiquitous in aerated soils and become active under wet anoxic conditions. ISME J. 2012;6:847–62.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
37.Hyatt D, Chen G-L, Locascio PF, Land ML, Larimer FW, Hauser LJ. Prodigal: prokaryotic gene recognition and translation initiation site identification. BMC Bioinformatics. 2010;11:5–11.
Google Scholar 
38.Gillespie CS. Fitting heavy tailed distributions: the poweRlaw Package. J Stat Softw. 2015;64:1–16.
Google Scholar 
39.El-Gebali S, Mistry J, Bateman A, Eddy SR, Luciani A, Potter SC, et al. The Pfam protein families database in 2019. Nucleic Acids Res. 2018;47:427–32.
Google Scholar 
40.Eddy SR. Accelerated profile HMM searches. PLOS Comput Biol. 2011;7:e1002195.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
41.Petersen TN, Brunak S, von Heijne G, Nielsen H. SignalP 4.0: discriminating signal peptides from transmembrane regions. Nat Methods. 2011;8:785–6.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
42.Bendtsen JD, Kiemer L, Fausbøll A, Brunak S. Non-classical protein secretion in bacteria. BMC Microbiol. 2005;5:1–13.
Google Scholar 
43.Yu NY, Wagner JR, Laird MR, Melli G, Rey S, Lo R, et al. PSORTb 3.0: improved protein subcellular localization prediction with refined localization subcategories and predictive capabilities for all prokaryotes. Bioinformatics. 2010;26:1608–15.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
44.Orsi WD. MetaProt: an integrated database of predicted proteins for improved annotation of metaomic datasets. Open Data LMU. 2020. https://doi.org/10.5282/ubm/data.18345.Lombard V, Golaconda Ramulu H, Drula E, Coutinho PM, Henrissat B. The carbohydrate-active enzymes database (CAZy) in 2013. Nucleic Acids Res. 2013;42:490–5.
Google Scholar 
46.Buchfink B, Xie C, Huson DH. Fast and sensitive protein alignment using DIAMOND. Nat Methods. 2014;12:59–60.PubMed 

Google Scholar 
47.Oksanen AJ, Blanchet FG, Kindt R, Legen- P, Minchin PR, Hara RBO, et al. vegan: Community Ecology Package. 2019. https://cran.r-project.org/package=vegan48.Lê S, Josse J, Husson F. FactoMineR: an R package for multivariate analysis. J Stat Softw. 2008;25:1–18.
Google Scholar 
49.Kolde R. pheatmap: pretty heatmaps. 2019. https://cran.r-project.org/package=pheatmap50.Noll L, Zhang S, Zheng Q, Hu Y, Wanek W. Wide-spread limitation of soil organic nitrogen transformations by substrate availability and not by extracellular enzyme content. Soil Biol Biochem. 2019;133:37–49.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
51.Schimel JP, Bennett J. Nitrogen mineralization: challenges of a changing paradigm. Ecology. 2004;85:591–602.
Google Scholar 
52.Wild B, Ambus P, Reinsch S, Richter A. Resistance of soil protein depolymerization rates to eight years of elevated CO2, warming, and summer drought in a temperate heathland. Biogeochemistry. 2018;140:255–67.CAS 

Google Scholar 
53.Wanek W, Mooshammer M, Blöchl A, Hanreich A, Richter A. Determination of gross rates of amino acid production and immobilization in decomposing leaf litter by a novel 15N isotope pool dilution technique. Soil Biol Biochem. 2010;42:1293–302.CAS 

Google Scholar 
54.Liang C, Schimel JP, Jastrow JD. The importance of anabolism in microbial control over soil carbon storage. Nat Microbiol. 2017;2:1–6.
Google Scholar 
55.Vranova V, Rejsek K, Formanek P. Proteolytic activity in soil: a review. Appl Soil Ecol. 2013;70:23–32.
Google Scholar 
56.Schimel JP, Weintraub MN. The implications of exoenzyme activity on microbial carbon and nitrogen limitation in soil: a theoretical model. Soil Biol Biochem. 2003;35:549–63.CAS 

Google Scholar 
57.Rawlings ND, Waller M, Barrett AJ, Bateman A. MEROPS: The database of proteolytic enzymes, their substrates and inhibitors. Nucleic Acids Res. 2014;42:503–9.
Google Scholar 
58.Vollmer W, Joris B, Charlier P, Foster S. Bacterial peptidoglycan (murein) hydrolases. FEMS Microbiol Rev. 2008;32:259–86.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
59.Vermassen A, Leroy S, Talon R, Provot C, Popowska M, Desvaux M. Cell wall hydrolases in bacteria: Insight on the diversity of cell wall amidases, glycosidases and peptidases toward peptidoglycan. Front Microbiol. 2019;10:1–27.
Google Scholar 
60.Donhauser J, Qi W, Bergk-Pinto B, Frey B. High temperatures enhance the microbial genetic potential to recycle C and N from necromass in high-mountain soils. Glob Chang Biol. 2020;27:1365–86.61.Vollmer W, Blanot D, De Pedro MA. Peptidoglycan structure and architecture. FEMS Microbiology Reviews. 2008;32:149–67.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
62.Semchenko M, Leff JW, Lozano YM, Saar S, Davison J, Wilkinson A, et al. Fungal diversity regulates plant-soil feedbacks in temperate grassland. Science Adv. 2018;4.63.Saary P, Mitchell AL, Finn RD. Estimating the quality of eukaryotic genomes recovered from metagenomic analysis. Genome Biol. 2020;21:244.PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar  More

1.Watson, J. E. M., Dudley, N., Segan, D. B. & Hockings, M. The performance and potential of protected areas. Nature 515, 67–73 (2014).CAS 

Google Scholar 
2.Juffe-Bignoli, D. et al. Protected Planet Report 2014 (UNEP-WCMC, 2014).3.Gray, C. L. et al. Local biodiversity is higher inside than outside terrestrial protected areas worldwide. Nat. Commun. 7, 12306 (2016).4.Xu, W. et al. Strengthening protected areas for biodiversity and ecosystem services in China. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, 1601–1606 (2017).CAS 

Google Scholar 
5.Naidoo, R. et al. Evaluating the impacts of protected areas on human well-being across the developing world. Sci. Adv. 5, eaav3006 (2019).CAS 

Google Scholar 
6.Geldmann, J. et al. Effectiveness of terrestrial protected areas in reducing habitat loss and population declines. Biol. Conserv. 161, 230–238 (2013).
Google Scholar 
7.Cazalis, V. et al. Effectiveness of protected areas in conserving tropical forest birds. Nat. Commun. 11, 4461 (2020).8.Elsen, P. R., Monahan, W. B., Dougherty, E. R. & Merenlender, A. M. Keeping pace with climate change in global terrestrial protected areas. Sci. Adv. 6, eaay0814 (2020).
Google Scholar 
9.Hoffmann, S., Irl, S. D. H. & Beierkuhnlein, C. Predicted climate shifts within terrestrial protected areas worldwide. Nat. Commun. 10, 4787 (2019).10.Batllori, E., Parisien, M. A., Parks, S. A., Moritz, M. A. & Miller, C. Potential relocation of climatic environments suggests high rates of climate displacement within the North American protection network. Glob. Change Biol. 23, 3219–3230 (2017).
Google Scholar 
11.Ward, M. et al. Just ten percent of the global terrestrial protected area network is structurally connected via intact land. Nat. Commun. 11, 4563 (2020).CAS 

Google Scholar 
12.Jones, K. R. et al. One-third of global protected land is under intense human pressure. Science 360, 788–791 (2018).CAS 

Google Scholar 
13.Parks, S. A., Carroll, C., Dobrowski, S. Z. & Allred, B. W. Human land uses reduce climate connectivity across North America. Glob. Change Biol. 26, 2944–2955 (2020).
Google Scholar 
14.McGuire, J. L., Lawler, J. J., McRae, B. H., Nuñez, T. A. & Theobald, D. M. Achieving climate connectivity in a fragmented landscape. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, 7195–7200 (2016).CAS 

Google Scholar 
15.Watson, J. E. M., Iwamura, T. & Butt, N. Mapping vulnerability and conservation adaptation strategies under climate change. Nat. Clim. Change 3, 989–994 (2013).
Google Scholar 
16.Pecl, G. T. et al. Biodiversity redistribution under climate change: impacts on ecosystems and human well-being. Science 355, eaai9214 (2017).
Google Scholar 
17.Jones, C., Giorgi, F. & Asrar, G. The coordinated regional downscaling experiment: CORDEX–an international downscaling link to CMIP5. CLIVAR Exch. 16, 34–40 (2011).
Google Scholar 
18.Hurtt, G. C. et al. Harmonization of global land-use change and management for the period 850-2100 (LUH2) for CMIP6. Geosci. Model Dev. 13, 5425–5464 (2020).CAS 

Google Scholar 
19.Loarie, S. R. et al. The velocity of climate change. Nature 462, 1052–1055 (2009).CAS 

Google Scholar 
20.Ordonez, A., Martinuzzi, S., Radeloff, V. C. & Williams, J. W. Combined speeds of climate and land-use change of the conterminous US until 2050. Nat. Clim. Change 4, 811–816 (2014).
Google Scholar 
21.UN General Assembly Resolution A/RES/70/1 (UN, 2015).22.Harrop, S. R. ‘Living in harmony with nature’? Outcomes of the 2010 Nagoya conference of the convention on biological diversity. J. Environ. Law 23, 117–128 (2011).
Google Scholar 
23.Maxwell, S. L. et al. Area-based conservation in the twenty-first century. Nature 586, 217–227 (2020).CAS 

Google Scholar 
24.Schloss, C. A., Nuñez, T. A. & Lawler, J. J. Dispersal will limit ability of mammals to track climate change in the Western Hemisphere. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109, 8606–8611 (2012).CAS 

Google Scholar 
25.Chen, I. C., Hill, J. K., Ohlemüller, R., Roy, D. B. & Thomas, C. D. Rapid range shifts of species associated with high levels of climate warming. Science 333, 1024–1026 (2011).CAS 

Google Scholar 
26.Schwalm, C. R., Glendon, S. & Duffy, P. B. RCP8.5 tracks cumulative CO2 emissions. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117, 19656–19657 (2020).CAS 

Google Scholar 
27.Ando, A. W. & Mallory, M. L. Optimal portfolio design to reduce climate-related conservation uncertainty in the Prairie Pothole Region. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109, 6484–6489 (2012).CAS 

Google Scholar 
28.Ackerly, D. D. et al. The geography of climate change: implications for conservation biogeography. Divers. Distrib. 16, 476–487 (2010).
Google Scholar 
29.Dobrowski, S. Z. & Parks, S. A. Climate change velocity underestimates climate change exposure in mountainous regions. Nat. Commun. 7, 12349 (2016).30.Hoegh-Guldberg, O. et al. in Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C (eds Masson-Delmotte, V. et al.) 175–311 (IPCC, WMO, 2018).31.Sandel, B. et al. The influence of late Quaternary climate-change velocity on species endemism. Science 334, 660–664 (2011).CAS 

Google Scholar 
32.Ordonez, A., Williams, J. W. & Svenning, J.-C. Mapping climatic mechanisms likely to favour the emergence of novel communities. Nat. Clim. Change 6, 1104–1109 (2016).
Google Scholar 
33.Carroll, C. et al. Scale-dependent complementarity of climatic velocity and environmental diversity for identifying priority areas for conservation under climate change. Glob. Change Biol. 23, 4508–4520 (2017).
Google Scholar 
34.Alexander, J. M. et al. Lags in the response of mountain plant communities to climate change. Glob. Change Biol. 24, 563–579 (2018).
Google Scholar 
35.Lawler, J. J. et al. Projected land-use change impacts on ecosystem services in the United States. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 7492–7497 (2014).CAS 

Google Scholar 
36.Stein, B. A. et al. Preparing for and managing change: climate adaptation for biodiversity and ecosystems. Front. Ecol. Environ. 11, 502–510 (2013).
Google Scholar 
37.Elsen, P. R., Monahan, W. B. & Merenlender, A. M. Global patterns of protection of elevational gradients in mountain ranges. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115, 6004–6009 (2018).CAS 

Google Scholar 
38.Burrows, M. T. et al. The pace of shifting climate in marine and terrestrial ecosystems. Science 334, 652–655 (2011).CAS 

Google Scholar 
39.Burrows, M. T. et al. Geographical limits to species-range shifts are suggested by climate velocity. Nature 507, 492–495 (2014).CAS 

Google Scholar 
40.Fitzpatrick, M. C., Gove, A. D., Sanders, N. & Dunn, R. R. Climate change, plant migration, and range collapse in a global biodiversity hotspot: the Banksia (Proteaceae) of Western Australia. Glob. Change Biol. 14, 1337–1352 (2008).
Google Scholar 
41.Dynesius, M. & Jansson, R. Evolutionary consequences of changes in species’ geographical distributions driven by Milankovitch climate oscillations. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 97, 9115–9120 (2000).CAS 

Google Scholar 
42.Geldmann, J., Manica, A., Burgess, N. D., Coad, L. & Balmford, A. A global-level assessment of the effectiveness of protected areas at resisting anthropogenic pressures. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 23209–23215 (2019).CAS 

Google Scholar 
43.Tittensor, D. P. et al. Integrating climate adaptation and biodiversity conservation in the global ocean. Sci. Adv. 5, eaay9969 (2019).
Google Scholar 
44.Osorio, F., Vallejos, R. & Cuevas, F. SpatialPack: Package for Analysis of Spatial Data. R package version 0.2-3 (2014).45.Williams, K. D. et al. The Met Office Global Coupled model 2.0 (GC2) configuration. Geosci. Model Dev. 8, 1509–1524 (2015).
Google Scholar 
46.Giorgetta, M. A. et al. Climate and carbon cycle changes from 1850 to 2100 in MPI-ESM simulations for the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5. J. Adv. Model. Earth Syst. https://doi.org/10.1002/jame.20038 (2013).47.Knudsen, E. M. & Walsh, J. E. Northern Hemisphere storminess in the Norwegian Earth System Model (NorESM1-M). Geosci. Model Dev. 9, 2335–2355 (2016).
Google Scholar 
48.Brito-Morales, I. et al. Climate velocity can inform conservation in a warming world. Trends Ecol. Evol. 33, 441–457 (2018).
Google Scholar 
49.García Molinos, J., Schoeman, D. S., Brown, C. J. & Burrows, M. T. VoCC: an R package for calculating the velocity of climate change and related climatic metrics. Methods Ecol. Evol. 10, 2195–2202 (2019).
Google Scholar 
50.UNEP‐WCMC & IUCN Protected Planet: The World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA, 2018).51.Visconti, P. et al. Protected area targets post-2020. Science 364, eaav6886 (2019).
Google Scholar 
52.Farr, T. G. et al. The shuttle radar topography mission. Rev. Geophys. https://doi.org/10.1029/2005RG000183 (2007).53.Olson, D. M. et al. Terrestrial ecoregions of the world: a new map of life on Earth. BioScience 51, 933–938 (2001).54.Ellis, E. C., Antill, E. C. & Kreft, H. All is not loss: plant biodiversity in the anthropocene. PLoS ONE 7, 30535 (2012).55.Asamoah, E. F. Climate Velocity and Land-use Instability 1971–2100 (Figshare, 2021); https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.14852955.v4 More

1.Chao, S. Forest Peoples: Numbers Across the World (Forest Peoples Programme, 2021).2.Zomer, R. J. et al. Sci. Rep. 6, 29987 (2016).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
3.Schnell, S., Altrell, D., Ståhl, G. & Kleinn, C. Environ. Monit. Assess. 187, 4197 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
4.Brandt, M. et al. Nature 587, 78–82 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
5.Baccini, A. et al. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2, 182–185 (2012).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
6.Miller, D. C., Muñoz-Mora, J. C. & Christiaensen, L. Forest Policy Econ. 84, 47–61 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
7.Mbow, C., Smith, P., Skole, D., Duguma, L. & Bustamante, M. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 6, 8–14 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
8.Brandt, M. et al. Nat. Geosci. 11, 328–333 (2018).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
9.Mbow, C. et al. in Climate Change and Agriculture (ed. Deryng, D.) Ch. 10 (Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing, 2020).10.Akinyemi, F. O., Ghazaryan, G. & Dubovyk, O. Land Degrad. Dev. 32, 158–172 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
11.Sitch, S. et al. Biogeosciences 12, 653–679 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
12.Schnell, S., Kleinn, C. & Ståhl, G. Environ. Monit. Assess. 187, 600 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
13.Hansen, M. C. et al. Science 342, 850–853 (2013).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
14.Kuyah, S. et al. Agrofor. Syst. 86, 267–277 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
15.Nationally Determined Contributions Under the Paris Agreement Synthesis Report by the Secretariat FCCC/PA/CMA/2021/2/Add 2 (UNFCCC, 2021); https://unfccc.int/documents/26857316.Lohbeck, M. et al. Sci. Rep. 10, 15038 (2020).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
17.Chomba, S., Sinclair, F., Savadogo, P., Bourne, M. & Lohbeck, M. Front. For. Glob. Chang. 3, 571679 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
18.Griscom, B. W. et al. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, 11645–11650 (2017).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar  More

1.Weisse, M. & Goldman, E. D. We Lost a Football Pitch of Primary Rainforest Every 6 Seconds in 2019 (World Resources Institute, 2020); https://www.wri.org/blog/2020/06/global-tree-cover-loss-data-20192.Gibson, L. et al. Primary forests are irreplaceable for sustaining tropical biodiversity. Nature 478, 378–381 (2011).CAS 

Google Scholar 
3.Pan, Y. et al. A large and persistent carbon sink in the world’s forests. Science 333, 988–993 (2011).CAS 

Google Scholar 
4.State of the World’s Indigenous Peoples: Rights to Lands, Territories and Resources (UN, 2021).5.Curtis, P. G., Slay, C. M., Harris, N. L., Tyukavina, A. & Hansen, M. C. Classifying drivers of global forest loss. Science 361, 1108–1111 (2018).CAS 

Google Scholar 
6.Larsen, P. B. et al. Understanding and responding to the environmental human rights defenders crisis: the case for conservation action. Conserv. Lett. 14, e12777 (2020).
Google Scholar 
7.Tauli-Corpuz, V., Alcorn, J., Molnar, A., Healy, C. & Barrow, E. Cornered by PAs: adopting rights-based approaches to enable cost-effective conservation and climate action. World Dev. 130, 104923 (2020).
Google Scholar 
8.Dinerstein, E. et al. A global deal for nature: guiding principles, milestones, and targets. Sci. Adv. 5, eaaw2869 (2019).CAS 

Google Scholar 
9.Dudley, N. et al. The essential role of other effective area-based conservation measures in achieving big bold conservation targets. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 15, e00424 (2018).
Google Scholar 
10.Zero Draft of the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework CBD/WG2020/2/3 (Convention on Biological Diversity, 2020).11.NGO Concerns Over the Proposed 30% Target for Protected Areas and Absence of Safeguards for Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities (Rainforest Foundation UK, 2021).12.Reyes-García, V. et al. Recognizing Indigenous Peoples’ and local communities’ rights and agency in the post-2020 Biodiversity Agenda. Ambio https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-021-01561-7 (2021).13.Territories of Life: 2021 Report 52 (ICCA Consortium, 2021); https://report.territoriesoflife.org14.Garnett, S. T. et al. A spatial overview of the global importance of Indigenous lands for conservation. Nat. Sustain. 1, 369–374 (2018).
Google Scholar 
15.Fa, J. E. et al. Importance of Indigenous Peoples’ lands for the conservation of intact forest landscapes. Front. Ecol. Environ. 18, 135–140 (2020).
Google Scholar 
16.Vergara-Asenjo, G. & Potvin, C. Forest protection and tenure status: the key role of indigenous peoples and protected areas in Panama. Glob. Environ. Change 28, 205–215 (2014).
Google Scholar 
17.Blackman, A. & Veit, P. Titled Amazon indigenous communities cut forest carbon emissions. Ecol. Econ. 153, 56–67 (2018).
Google Scholar 
18.Walker, W. S. et al. The role of forest conversion, degradation, and disturbance in the carbon dynamics of Amazon indigenous territories and protected areas. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117, 3015–3025 (2020).CAS 

Google Scholar 
19.Nolte, C., Agrawal, A., Silvius, K. M. & Soares-Filho, B. S. Governance regime and location influence avoided deforestation success of protected areas in the Brazilian Amazon. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110, 4956–4961 (2013).CAS 

Google Scholar 
20.Schleicher, J., Peres, C. A., Amano, T., Llactayo, W. & Leader-Williams, N. Conservation performance of different conservation governance regimes in the Peruvian Amazon. Sci. Rep. 7, 11318 (2017).
Google Scholar 
21.Jusys, T. Changing patterns in deforestation avoidance by different protection types in the Brazilian Amazon. PLoS ONE 13, e0195900 (2018).
Google Scholar 
22.State of the World’s Indigenous Peoples (UN, 2009).23.Jackson, J. E. & Warren, K. B. Indigenous movements in Latin America, 1992–2004: controversies, ironies, new directions. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 34, 549–573 (2005).
Google Scholar 
24.Vancutsem, C. et al. Long-term (1990–2019) monitoring of forest cover changes in the humid tropics. Sci. Adv. 7, eabe1603 (2021).
Google Scholar 
25.Hansen, M. C. et al. High-resolution global maps of 21st-century forest cover change. Science 342, 850–853 (2013).CAS 

Google Scholar 
26.Stuart, E. A. & Rubin, D. B. in Best Practices in Quantitative Methods (ed. Osborne, J.) 155–176 (SAGE Publications, 2008).27.Pfaff, A., Robalino, J., Lima, E., Sandoval, C. & Herrera, L. D. Governance, location and avoided deforestation from protected areas: greater restrictions can have lower impact, due to differences in location. World Dev. 55, 7–20 (2014).
Google Scholar 
28.Leberger, R., Rosa, I. M. D., Guerra, C. A., Wolf, F. & Pereira, H. M. Global patterns of forest loss across IUCN categories of protected areas. Biol. Conserv. 241, 108299 (2020).
Google Scholar 
29.Borrini-Feyerabend, G. et al. Governance of Protected Areas: From Understanding to Action (IUCN, 2013).30.Who Owns the World’s Land? A Global Baseline of Formally Recognized Indigenous and Community Land Rights (Rights and Resources Initiative, 2015); https://rightsandresources.org/wp-content/uploads/GlobalBaseline_web.pdf31.Dubertret, F. & Alden Wily, L. Percent of Indigenous and Community Lands (Landmark, 2015).32.Under the Cover of COVID: New Laws in Asia Favor Business at the Cost of Indigenous Peoples’ and Local Communities’ Land and Territorial Rights (Rights and Resources Initiative, 2020).33.Domínguez, L. & Luoma, C. Decolonising conservation policy: how colonial land and conservation ideologies persist and perpetuate indigenous injustices at the expense of the environment. Land 9, 65 (2020).
Google Scholar 
34.Pyhälä, A., Orozco, A. O. & Counsell, S. Protected Areas in the Congo Basin: Failing both people and biodiversity? (FAO, 2016).35.Pearson, T. R. H., Brown, S., Murray, L. & Sidman, G. Greenhouse gas emissions from tropical forest degradation: an underestimated source. Carbon Balance Manag. 12, 3 (2017).
Google Scholar 
36.Barlow, J. et al. Anthropogenic disturbance in tropical forests can double biodiversity loss from deforestation. Nature 535, 144–147 (2016).CAS 

Google Scholar 
37.Hansen, A. J. et al. A policy-driven framework for conserving the best of Earth’s remaining moist tropical forests. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 4, 1377–1384 (2020).
Google Scholar 
38.Milodowski, D. T. et al. The impact of logging on vertical canopy structure across a gradient of tropical forest degradation intensity in Borneo. J. Appl. Ecol. 58, 1764–1775 (2021).
Google Scholar 
39.Benítez-López, A., Santini, L., Schipper, A. M., Busana, M. & Huijbregts, M. A. J. Intact but empty forests? Patterns of hunting-induced mammal defaunation in the tropics. PLoS Biol. 17, e3000247 (2019).
Google Scholar 
40.Miettinen, J., Stibig, H.-J. & Achard, F. Remote sensing of forest degradation in Southeast Asia—aiming for a regional view through 5–30 m satellite data. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 2, 24–36 (2014).
Google Scholar 
41.Yuliani, E. L. et al. Keeping the land: indigenous communities’ struggle over land use and sustainable forest management in Kalimantan, Indonesia. Ecol. Soc. 23, art49 (2018).
Google Scholar 
42.Berkes, F. Sacred Ecology (Routledge, 2017).43.Sheil, D., Boissière, M. & Beaudoin, G. Unseen sentinels: local monitoring and control in conservation’s blind spots. Ecol. Soc. 20, 39 (2015).
Google Scholar 
44.Sasaoka, M. & Laumonier, Y. Suitability of local resource management practices based on supernatural enforcement mechanisms in the local social-cultural context. Ecol. Soc. 17, 6 (2012).
Google Scholar 
45.Asante, E. A., Ababio, S. & Boadu, K. B. The use of indigenous cultural practices by the Ashantis for the conservation of forests in Ghana. SAGE Open 7, 215824401668761 (2017).
Google Scholar 
46.Schwartzman, S. et al. The natural and social history of the indigenous lands and protected areas corridor of the Xingu River basin. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 368, 20120164 (2013).
Google Scholar 
47.Hayes, T. M. & Murtinho, F. Are indigenous forest reserves sustainable? An analysis of present and future land-use trends in Bosawas, Nicaragua. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 15, 497–511 (2008).
Google Scholar 
48.Tellman, B. et al. Illicit drivers of land use change: narcotrafficking and forest loss in central America. Glob. Environ. Change 63, 102092 (2020).
Google Scholar 
49.Bryan, J. For Nicaragua’s indigenous communities, land rights in name only: delineating boundaries among indigenous and black communities in eastern Nicaragua was supposed to guaranteed their land rights. Instead, it did the opposite. NACLA Rep. Am. 51, 55–64 (2019).
Google Scholar 
50.Seymour, F., La Vina, T. & Hite, K. Evidence Linking Community-level Tenure and Forest Condition: An Annotated Bibliography (Climate and Land Use Alliance, 2014).51.Tseng, T.-W. J. et al. Influence of land tenure interventions on human well-being and environmental outcomes. Nat. Sustain. 4, 242–251 (2021).
Google Scholar 
52.Robinson, B. E. et al. Incorporating land tenure security into conservation: conservation and land tenure security. Conserv. Lett. 11, e12383 (2018).
Google Scholar 
53.Smith, D. A., Holland, M. B., Michon, A., Ibáñez, A. & Herrera, F. The hidden layer of indigenous land tenure: informal forest ownership and its implications for forest use and conservation in Panama’s largest collective territory. Int. For. Rev. 19, 478–494 (2017).
Google Scholar 
54.Larson, A. M. & Springer, J. Recognition and Respect for Tenure Rights (IUCN, CEESP, CIFOR, 2016).55.Arizona, Y., Wicaksono, M. T. & Vel, J. The role of indigeneity NGOs in the legal recognition of adat communities and customary forests in Indonesia. Asia Pac. J. Anthropol. 20, 487–506 (2019).
Google Scholar 
56.Malavasi, M. The map of biodiversity mapping. Biol. Conserv. 252, 108843 (2020).
Google Scholar 
57.Witter, R. & Satterfield, T. The ebb and flow of indigenous rights recognitions in conservation policy: indigenous rights recognitions in conservation policy. Dev. Change 50, 1083–1108 (2019).
Google Scholar 
58.Dutta, A. et al. Response to a “global safety net” to reverse biodiversity loss and stabilize Earth’s climate. Sci. Adv. 6, eabb2824 (2021).
Google Scholar 
59.Herrera, D., Pfaff, A. & Robalino, J. Impacts of protected areas vary with the level of government: comparing avoided deforestation across agencies in the Brazilian Amazon. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 14916–14925 (2019).CAS 

Google Scholar 
60.Bebbington, A. J. et al. Resource extraction and infrastructure threaten forest cover and community rights. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115, 13164–13173 (2018).CAS 

Google Scholar 
61.Johnson, C. J., Venter, O., Ray, J. C. & Watson, J. E. M. Growth‐inducing infrastructure represents transformative yet ignored keystone environmental decisions. Conserv. Lett. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12696 (2020).62.Davis, K. F., Yu, K., Rulli, M. C., Pichdara, L. & D’Odorico, P. Accelerated deforestation driven by large-scale land acquisitions in Cambodia. Nat. Geosci. 8, 772–775 (2015).CAS 

Google Scholar 
63.Conigliani, C., Cuffaro, N. & D’Agostino, G. Large-scale land investments and forests in Africa. Land Use Policy 75, 651–660 (2018).
Google Scholar 
64.Global Land Analysis & Discovery. Global 2010 Tree Cover (30m) (Department of Geographical Sciences, Univ. Maryland, 2013).65.Global Forest Watch. Tree Cover Loss version 1.6 (World Resources Institute, 2019).66.Hansen, M. C., Stehman, S. V. & Potapov, P. V. Quantification of global gross forest cover loss. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 107, 8650–8655 (2010).CAS 

Google Scholar 
67.Protected Planet: The World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA) (UNEP-WCMC & IUCN, accessed January 2020; www.protectedplanet.net68.Hanson, J. O. wdpar: Interface to the world database on protected areas (CRAN, 2020); https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=wdpar69.Global Forest Watch. Spatial Database of Planted Trees (World Resources Institute, data aaccessed May 2021).70.Transparent World & Global Forest Watch. Tree Plantations (World Resources Institute, date accessed May 2021).71.Nelson, A. & Chomitz, K. M. Effectiveness of strict vs. multiple use protected areas in reducing tropical forest fires: a global analysis using matching methods. PLoS ONE 6, e22722 (2011).CAS 

Google Scholar 
72.Joppa, L. N. & Pfaff, A. High and far: biases in the location of protected areas. PLoS ONE 4, e8273 (2009).
Google Scholar 
73.Global Forest Watch. Tree Cover 2000 version 1.2 (World Resources Institute, 2015).74.Amatulli, G. et al. A suite of global, cross-scale topographic variables for environmental and biodiversity modeling. Sci. Data 5, 180040 (2018).
Google Scholar 
75.Nelson, A. et al. A suite of global accessibility indicators. Sci. Data 6, 266 (2019).
Google Scholar 
76.Global Roads Open Access Data Set Version 1 (gROADSv1) (1980–2010) (NASA SEDAC, 2013).77.Lloyd, C. T., Sorichetta, A. & Tatem, A. J. High resolution global gridded data for use in population studies. Sci. Data 4, 170001 (2017).
Google Scholar 
78.GADM Database of Global Administrative Areas version 3.6 (FAO, 2018).79.Ho, D., Imai, K., King, G. & Stuart, E. matchIt: Nonparametric preprocessing for parametric causal inference (CRAN, 2018); https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=MatchIt80.Wood, S. mgcv: Mixed GAM computation vehicle with automatic smoothness estimation (CRAN, 2019); https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=mgcv More

1.Abatzoglou, J. T., Williams, A. P., Boschetti, L., Zubkova, M. & Kolden, C. A. Global patterns of interannual climate-fire relationships (2018). Glob. Change Biol. 24, 5164–5175 (2018).
Google Scholar 
2.Littell, J. S., McKenzie, D., Peterson, D. L. & Westerling, A. L. Climate and wildfire area burned in western US ecoprovinces, 1916-2003. Ecol. Appl. 19, 1003–1021 (2009).
Google Scholar 
3.Abatzoglou, J. T. & Kolden, C. A. Relationships between climate and macroscale area burned in the western United States. Int. J. Wildland Fire 22, 1003–1020 (2013).
Google Scholar 
4.Wang, X. et al. Projected changes in daily fire spread across Canada over the next century. Environ. Res. Lett. 12, 025005 (2017).
Google Scholar 
5.Hanes, C. C. et al. Fire-regime changes in Canada over the last half century. Can. J. Res. 49, 256–269 (2019).
Google Scholar 
6.Amiro, B. D. et al. Fire weather index system components of large fires in the Canadian boreal forest. Int. J. Wildland Fire 13, 391–400 (2004).
Google Scholar 
7.Flannigan, M. D., Krawchuck, M. A., de Groot, W. J., Wotton, B. M. & Gowman, L. M. Implications of changing climate for global wildland fire. Int. J. Wildland Fire 18, 483–507 (2009).
Google Scholar 
8.Bowman, D. M. J. S. et al. Human exposure and sensitivity to globally extreme wildfire events. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 1, 0058 (2017).
Google Scholar 
9.Coogan, S. C. P., Robinne, F.-N., Jain, P. & Flannigan, M. D. Scientists’ warning on wildfire—a Canadian perspective. Can. J. Res. 49, 1015–1023 (2019).
Google Scholar 
10.Abatzoglou, J. T., Williams, A. P. & Barbero, R. Global emergence of anthropogenic climate change in fire weather indices. Geophys. Res. Lett. 46, 326–336 (2019).
Google Scholar 
11.Van Wagner, C. E. et al. Development and Structure of the Canadian Forest Fire Weather Index System (Canadian Forestry Service Headquarters, 1987); https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/forest-fire-danger-3/camia-et-al.-2008-past12.Flannigan, M. D. & Harrington, J. B. A study of the relation of meteorological variables to monthly provincial area burned by wildfire in Canada (1953-80). J. Appl. Meteorol. 27, 441–452 (1988).
Google Scholar 
13.Flannigan, M. D. et al. Fuel moisture sensitivity to temperature and precipitation: climate change implications. Clim. Change 134, 59–71 (2016).CAS 

Google Scholar 
14.Jolly, W. M. et al. Climate-induced variations in global wildfire danger from 1979 to 2013. Nat. Commun. 6, 7537 (2015).CAS 

Google Scholar 
15.Touma, D., Stevenson, S., Lehner, F. & Coats, S. Human-driven greenhouse gas and aerosol emissions cause distinct regional impacts on extreme fire weather. Nat. Commun. 12, 212 (2021).16.Clarke, H. G., Smith, P. L. & Pitman, A. J. Regional signatures of future fire weather over eastern Australia from global climate models. Int. J. Wildland Fire 20, 550–562 (2011).
Google Scholar 
17.Bedia, J. et al. Sensitivity of fire weather index to different reanalysis products in the Iberian Peninsula. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 12, 699–708 (2012).
Google Scholar 
18.Jain, P., Wang, X. & Flannigan, M. D. Trend analysis of fire season length and extreme fire weather in North America between 1979 and 2015. Int. J. Wildland Fire 26, 1009–1020 (2017).
Google Scholar 
19.Dowdy, A. J. Climatological variability of fire weather in Australia. J. Appl. Meteorol. Climatol. 57, 221–234 (2018).
Google Scholar 
20.Zhao, F., Liu, Y. & Shu, L. Change in the fire season pattern from bimodal to unimodal under climate change: the case of Daxing’anling in Northeast China. Agric. Meteorol. 291, 108075 (2020).
Google Scholar 
21.Hersbach, H. et al. The ERA5 global reanalysis. Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc. 146, 1999–2049 (2020).
Google Scholar 
22.Abatzoglou, J. T. & Williams, A. P. Impact of anthropogenic climate change on wildfire across western US forests. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, 11770–11775 (2016).CAS 

Google Scholar 
23.Kirchmeier-Young, M. C., Gillet, N. P., Zwiers, F. W., Cannon, A. J. & Anslow, F. S. Attribution of the influence of human-induced climate change on an extreme fire season. Earths Future 7, 2–10 (2019).
Google Scholar 
24.Pausas, J. G. & Ribeiro, E. The global-fire productivity relationship. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 22, 728–736 (2013).
Google Scholar 
25.Cochrane, M. A. Fire science for rainforests. Nature 421, 913–919 (2003).CAS 

Google Scholar 
26.Ziel, R. H. et al. A comparison of fire weather indices with MODIS fire days for the natural regions of Alaska. Forests 11, 516 (2020).
Google Scholar 
27.Giannaros, T. M., Kotroni, V. & Lagouvardos, K. Climatology and trend analysis (1987–2016) of fire weather in the Euro-Mediterranean. Int. J. Climatol. 41, E491–E508 (2021).
Google Scholar 
28.Harris, S. & Lucas, C. Understanding the variability of Australian fire weather between 1973 and 2017. PLoS ONE 14, e0222328 (2019).CAS 

Google Scholar 
29.Climate at a Glance (NOAA, 2021); https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/30.van Oldenborgh, G. J. et al. Attribution of the Australian bushfire risk to anthropogenic climate change. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 21, 941–960 (2021).
Google Scholar 
31.Barbero, R., Abatzoglou, J. T., Pimont, F., Ruffault, J. & Curt, T. Attributing increases in fire weather to anthropogenic climate change over France. Front. Earth Sci. https://doi.org/10.3389/feart.2020.00104 (2020).32.Byrne, M. P. & O’Gorman, P. A. Understanding decreases in land relative humidity with global warming: conceptual model and GCM simulations. J. Clim. 29, 9045–9061 (2016).
Google Scholar 
33.Willett, K. M., Jones, P. D., Gillett, N. P. & Thorne, P. W. Recent changes in surface humidity: development of the HadCRUH dataset. J. Clim. 21, 5364–5383 (2008).
Google Scholar 
34.Matsoukas, C. et al. Potential evaporation trends over land between 1983-2008: driven by radiative fluxes or vapour-pressure deficit? Atmos. Chem. Phys. 11, 7601–7616 (2011).CAS 

Google Scholar 
35.Grotjahn, R. & Huynh, J. Contiguous US summer maximum temperature and heat stress trends in CRU and NOAA climate division data plus comparisons to reanalyses. Sci. Rep. 8, 11146 (2018).CAS 

Google Scholar 
36.Denson, E., Wasko, C. & Peel, M. C. Decreases in relative humidity across Australia. Environ. Res. Lett. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ac0aca (2021).37.Barkhordarian, A., Saatchi, S. S., Behrangi, A., Loikith, P. C. & Mechoso, C. R. A recent systematic increase in vapor pressure deficit over tropical South America. Sci. Rep. 9, 15331 (2019).
Google Scholar 
38.Findell, K. L. et al. The impact of anthropogenic land use and land cover change on regional climate extremes. Nat. Commun. 8, 989 (2017).39.McKinnon, K. A., Poppick, A. & Simpson, I. R. Hot extremes have become drier in the United States Southwest. Nat. Clim. Change https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-021-01076-9 (2021).40.Berg, A. et al. Land–atmosphere feedbacks amplify aridity increase over land under global warming. Nat. Clim. Change 6, 869–874 (2016).
Google Scholar 
41.Mishra, V. et al. Moist heat stress extremes in India enhanced by irrigation. Nat. Geosci. 13, 722–728 (2020).CAS 

Google Scholar 
42.Dong, B. & Dai, A. The influence of the interdecadal Pacific oscillation on temperature and precipitation over the globe. Clim. Dyn. 45, 2667–2681 (2015).
Google Scholar 
43.Fischer, E. M. & Knutti, R. Robust projections of combined humidity and temperature extremes. Nat. Clim. Change 3, 126–130 (2013).
Google Scholar 
44.Tymstra C., Flannigan M. D., Stocks B. J., Cai X. & Morrison K. Wildfire management in Canada: review, challenges and opportunities. Prog. Disaster Sci. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pdisas.2019.100045 (2020).45.Flannigan, M. D., Stocks, B., Turetsky, M. & Wotton, M. Impacts of climate change on fire activity and fire management in the circumboreal forest. Glob. Change Biol. 15, 549–560 (2009).
Google Scholar 
46.Chen, Y. et al. Future increases in Arctic lightning and fire risk for permafrost carbon. Nat. Clim. Change https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-021-01011-y (2021).47.Hope, E. S., McKenney, D. W., Pedlar, J. H., Stocks, B. J. & Gauthier, S. Wildfire suppression costs for Canada under a changing climate. PLoS ONE 11, e0157425 (2016).
Google Scholar 
48.Podur, J. & Wotton, B. M. Will climate change overwhelm fire management capacity? Ecol. Modell. 221, 1301–1309 (2010).
Google Scholar 
49.Abatzoglou, J. T., Juang, C. S., Williams, A. P., Kolden, C. A. & Westerling, A. L. Increasing synchronous fire danger in forests of the western United States. Geophys. Res. Lett. 48, e2020GL091377 (2021).
Google Scholar 
50.Olson, D. M. et al. Terrestrial ecoregions of the world: a new map of life on Earth. Bioscience 51, 933–938 (2001).
Google Scholar 
51.Copernicus Climate Change Service Data Store (Copernicus Climate Change Service, accessed 4 March 2020); https://confluence.ecmwf.int/display/CKB/ERA5%3A+data+documentation52.Ramon, J., Lledo, L., Torralba, V., Soret, A. & Doblas-Reyes, F. J. What global reanalysis best represents near-surface winds? Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc. 145, 3236–3251 (2019).
Google Scholar 
53.Beck, H. E. et al. Daily evaluation of 26 precipitation datasets using stage-IV gauge-radar data for the CONUS. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 23, 207–224 (2019).
Google Scholar 
54.Tarek, M., Brissette, F. P. & Arsenault, R. Evaluation of the ERA5 reanalysis as a potential reference dataset for hydrological modelling over North America. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 24, 2527–2544 (2020).
Google Scholar 
55.Torralba, V., Doblas-Reyes, F. J. & Gonzalez-Reviriego, N. Uncertainty in recent near-surface wind speed trends: a global reanalysis intercomparison. Environ. Res. Lett. 12, 114019 (2017).
Google Scholar 
56.Dinerstein, E. et al. An ecoregion-based approach to protecting half the terrestrial realm. BioScience 67, 534–545 (2017).
Google Scholar 
57.Andela, N. et al. The global fire atlas of individual fire size, duration, speed and direction. Earth Syst. Sci. Data 11, 529–552 (2019).
Google Scholar 
58.Wotton, B. M. Interpreting and using outputs from the Canadian Forest Fire Danger Rating System in research applications. Environ. Ecol. Stat. 16, 107–131 (2009).CAS 

Google Scholar 
59.Field, R. D. et al. Development of a global fire weather database. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 15, 1407–1423 (2015).
Google Scholar 
60.Bedia, J. et al. Global patterns in the sensitivity of burned area to fire weather: implications for climate change. Agric. Meteorol. 214–215, 369–379 (2015).
Google Scholar 
61.McElhinny, M., Beckers, J. F., Hanes, C., Flannigan, M. & Jain, P. A high-resolution reanalysis of global fire weather from 1979 to 2018 – overwintering the Drought Code. Earth Syst. Sci. Data 12, 1823–1833 (2020).
Google Scholar 
62.Wotton, B. M. & Flannigan, M. D. Length of the fire season in a changing climate. Forestry Chron. 69, 187–192 (1993).
Google Scholar 
63.Sedano, F. & Randerson, J. T. Vapor pressure deficit controls on fire ignition and fire spread in boreal forest ecosystems. Biogeosciences 11, 1309–1353 (2014).
Google Scholar 
64.Williams, P. A. et al. Correlations between components of the water balance and burned area reveal new insights for predicting forest fire area in the southwest United States. Int. J. Wildland Fire 24, 14–26 (2014).
Google Scholar 
65.Williams, A. P. et al. Observed impacts of anthropogenic climate change on wildfire in California. Earths Future 7, 892–910 (2019).
Google Scholar 
66.Mueller, S. E. et al. Climate relationships with increasing wildfire in the southwestern US from 1984 to 2015. For. Ecol. Manage. 460, 117861 (2020).
Google Scholar 
67.Alduchov, O. A. & Eskridge, R. E. Improved Magnus form approximation of saturation vapor pressure. J. Appl. Meteorol. 35, 601–609 (1996).
Google Scholar 
68.Knauer, J., El-Madany, T. S., Zaehle, S. & Migliavacca, M. Bigleaf—an R package for the calculation of physical and physiological ecosystem properties from eddy covariance data. PLoS ONE 13, e0201114 (2018).
Google Scholar 
69.Friedl, M. A. et al. MODIS Collection 5 global land cover: algorithm refinements and characterization of new datasets. Remote Sens. Environ. 114, 168–182 (2010).
Google Scholar 
70.Loveland, T. R. & Belward, A. S. The IGBP-DIS global 1 km land cover data set, DISCover: first results. Int. J. Remote Sens. 18, 3291–3295 (1997).
Google Scholar 
71.Mann, H. B. Nonparametric tests against trend. Econometrica 13, 245–259 (1945).
Google Scholar 
72.Kendall, M. G. Rank Correlation Methods (Griffin, 1975).
Google Scholar 
73.Theil, H. A rank-invariant method of linear and polynomial regression analysis. I, II, III. Nederl. Akad. Wetensch. Proc. 53, part I: 386–392; part II: 521–525; part III: 1397–1412 (1950).74.Sen, P. K. Estimates of the regression coefficient based on Kendall’s tau. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 63, 1379–1389 (1968).
Google Scholar 
75.Yue, S., Pilon, P. & Phinney, B. Canadian streamflow trend detection: impacts of serial and cross-correlation. Hydrol. Sci. J. 48, 51–63 (2003).
Google Scholar 
76.Wilks, D. S. On ‘field significance’ and the false discovery rate. J. Appl. Meteorol. Climatol. 45, 1181–1189 (2006).
Google Scholar 
77.Wilks, D. ‘The stippling shows statistically significant grid points’: how research results are routinely overstated and overinterpreted, and what to do about it. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 97, 2263–2273 (2016).
Google Scholar 
78.Libiseller, C. & Grimvall, A. Performance of partial Mann–Kendall tests for trend detection in the presence of covariates. Environmetrics 13, 71–84 (2002).CAS 

Google Scholar 
79.Mediero, L., Santillán, D., Garrote, L. & Granados, A. Detection and attribution of trends in magnitude, frequency and timing of floods in Spain. J. Hydrol. 517, 1072–1088 (2014).
Google Scholar 
80.Dowdy, A. J., Mills, G. A., Finkele, K. & de Groot, W. Index sensitivity analysis applied to the Canadian Forest Fire Weather Index and the McArthur Forest Fire Danger Index. Meteorol. Appl. 17, 298–312 (2010).
Google Scholar 
81.Millard, S. P. EnvStats: An R Package for Environmental Statistics (Springer, 2013).82.Pohlert, T. trend: Non-Parametric Trend Tests and Change-Point Detection. R package v.1.1.4. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=trend (2020). More

1.Jenkins, P. T. Free trade and exotic species introductions. Conserv. Biol. 10, 300–302 (1996).Article 

Google Scholar 
2.Sharov, A. A. Bioeconomics of managing the spread of exotic pest species with barrier zones. Risk Anal. 24, 879–892 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
3.Lodge, D. M. et al. Biological invasions: Recommendations for U.S. policy and management. Ecol. Appl. 16, 2035–2054 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
4.Yemshanov, D. et al. Optimizing surveillance strategies for early detection of invasive alien species. Ecol. Econ. 162, 87–99 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
5.Hauser, C. E. & Mccarthy, M. A. Streamlining “search and destroy”: Cost-effective surveillance for invasive species management. Ecol. Lett. 12, 683–692 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
6.Gottwald, T. R., da Graça, J. V. & Bassanezi, R. B. Citrus Huanglongbing: The pathogen and its impact. Plant Health Prog. https://doi.org/10.1094/PHP-2007-0906-01-RV (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
7.Anderson, D. P. et al. Bio-economic optimisation of surveillance to confirm broadscale eradications of invasive pests and diseases. Biol. Invasions 19, 2869–2884 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
8.Russell, J. C., Binnie, H. R., Oh, J., Anderson, D. P. & Samaniego-Herrera, A. Optimizing confirmation of invasive species eradication with rapid eradication assessment. J. Appl. Ecol. 54, 160–169 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
9.Moffitt, L. J., Stranlund, J. K. & Osteen, C. D. Robust detection protocols for uncertain introductions of invasive species. J. Environ. Manag. 89, 293–299 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
10.Knight, F. H. Risk, Uncertainty, and Profit (Houghton Mifflin Company, 1921).11.Ben-Haim, Y. Uncertainty, probability and information-gaps. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 85, 249–266 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
12.Johnson, D. R. & Geldner, N. B. Contemporary decision methods for agricultural, environmental, and resource management and policy. Annu. Rev. Resour. Econ. 11, 19–41 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
13.Baker, C. M. & Bode, M. Recent advances of quantitative modeling to support invasive species eradication on islands. Conserv. Sci. Pract. 3, e246. https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.246 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
14.Bertsimas, D. & Sim, M. The price of robustness. Oper. Res. 52, 35–53 (2004).MathSciNet 
Article 

Google Scholar 
15.Ben-Haim, Y. & Demertzis, M. Decision making in times of knightian uncertainty: An info-gap perspective. Economics 10, 1–29 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
16.Ben-Haim, Y. Management of invasive species: Info-gap perspectives. in Invasive Species: Risk Assessment and Management (eds. Robinson, A., Walshe, T., Burgman, M. A., Nunn, M.) 266–286 (Cambridge University Press, 2017).17.Davidovitch, L. et al. Info-gap theory and robust design of surveillance for invasive species: The case study of Barrow Island. J. Environ. Manag. 90, 2785–2793 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
18.Rout, T. M., Thompson, C. J. & McCarthy, M. A. Robust decisions for declaring eradication of invasive species. J. Appl. Ecol. 46, 782–786 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
19.Foxcroft, L. C. Developing thresholds of potential concern for invasive alien species: Hypotheses and concepts. Koedoe. https://doi.org/10.4102/koedoe.v51i1.157 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
20.Pitt, J. P. W. Modelling the Spread of Invasive Species Across Heterogeneous Landscapes. (Lincoln University, 2008).21.Mehta, S. V., Haight, R. G., Homans, F. R., Polasky, S. & Venette, R. C. Optimal detection and control strategies for invasive species management. Ecol. Econ. 61, 237–245 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
22.Mcdonald-madden, E., Peter, W. J. B. & Possingham, H. P. Making robust decisions for conservation with restricted money and knowledge. J. Appl. Ecol. 45, 1630–1638 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
23.Rout, T. M., Moore, J. L. & Mccarthy, M. A. Prevent, search or destroy? A partially observable model for invasive species management. J. Appl. Ecol. 51, 804–813 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
24.Yemshanov, D. et al. Robust surveillance and control of invasive species using a scenario optimization approach. Ecol. Econ. 133, 86–98 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
25.Rödder, D., Solé, M. & Böhme, W. Predicting the potential distributions of two alien invasive Housegeckos (Gekkonidae: Hemidactylus frenatus, Hemidactylus mabouia). North-West. J. Zool. 4, 236–246 (2008).
Google Scholar 
26.Hoskin, C. J. The invasion and potential impact of the Asian House Gecko (Hemidactylus frenatus) in Australia. Austral. Ecol. 36, 240–251 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
27.García-Díaz, P., Ross, J. V., Vall-llosera, M. & Cassey, P. Low detectability of alien reptiles can lead to biosecurity management failure: A case study from Christmas Island (Australia). NeoBiota 45, 75–92 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
28.Scott, J. K. et al. Zero-tolerance biosecurity protects high-conservation-value island nature reserve. Sci. Rep. 7, 772–779 (2017).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
29.Commonwealth Government of Australia. Approval—Gorgon Gas Development (EPBC Reference: 2008/4178). (2009).30.Jarrad, F. C. et al. Improved design method for biosecurity surveillance and early detection of non-indigenous rats. N. Z. J. Ecol. 35, 132–144 (2011).
Google Scholar 
31.Metlay, D. From tin roof to torn wet blanket: Predicting and observing ground water movement at a proposed nuclear waste site. in Prediction: Science, Decision Making, and the Future of Nature (eds. Sarewitz, D. R., Byerly, R., Pielke, R. A.). 276–319. (Island Press, 2000).32.Wintle, B. & Burgman, M. Expert Elicitation for Barrow Island Surveillance System Revision, Project Report. (2015).33.Vanderduys, E. & Kutt, A. Is the Asian house gecko, Hemidactylus frenatus, really a threat to Australia’s biodiversity?. Aust. J. Zool. 60, 361–367 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
34.McGinnis, S. M. & Stebbins, R. C. A Field Guide to Western Reptiles and Amphibians. 4th edn. (Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2018).35.Whittle, P., Jarrad, F., Edwards, K. & Mengersen, K. Design of the quarantine surveillance for non-indigenous species of invertebrates on Barrow Island. Rec. West. Aust. Mus. Suppl. 83, 113–130 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
36.Ben-Haim, Y. Info-gap Decision Theory: Decisions Under Severe Uncertainty. 2nd edn. (Academic Press, 2006).37.MathWorks. MATLAB R2018b. (MathWorks, 2018).38.Bogich, T. L., Liebhold, A. M. & Shea, K. To sample or eradicate? A cost minimization model for monitoring and managing an invasive species. J. Appl. Ecol. 45, 1134–1142 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
39.Epanchin-Niell, R. S., Haight, R. G., Berec, L., Kean, J. M. & Liebhold, A. M. Optimal surveillance and eradication of invasive species in heterogeneous landscapes. Ecol. Lett. 15, 803–812 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
40.Trebitz, A. S. et al. Early detection monitoring for aquatic non-indigenous species: Optimizing surveillance, incorporating advanced technologies, and identifying research needs. J. Environ. Manag. 202, 299–310 (2017).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
41.Molina, R., Horton, T., Trappe, J. & Marcot, B. Addressing uncertainty: How to conserve and manage rare or little-known fungi. Fungal Ecol. 4, 134–146 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar  More