Philippa Kaur

1.Reynolds, M. P. et al. Improving global integration of crop research. Science 357, 359–360 (2017).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
2.Braun, H., Atlin, G. & Payne, T. Multi-location testing as a tool to identify plant response to global climate change. in Climate Change and Crop Production (ed. Reynolds, M. P.) 115–138 (CABI, 2010).3.Ray, D. K., Ramankutty, N., Mueller, N. D., West, P. C. & Foley, J. A. Recent patterns of crop yield growth and stagnation. Nat. Commun. 3, 1293 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
4.Liu, B. et al. Similar estimates of temperature impacts on global wheat yield by three independent methods. Nat. Clim. Change 6, 1130–1136 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
5.Lobell, D. B. & Field, C. B. Global scale climate–crop yield relationships and the impacts of recent warming. Environ. Res. Lett. 2, 14–21 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
6.Asseng, S. et al. Rising temperatures reduce global wheat production. Nat. Clim. Change 5, 143–147 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
7.Crespo-Herrera, L. A. et al. Genetic yield gains in CIMMYT’s international elite spring wheat yield trials by modeling the genotype × environment interaction. Crop Sci. 57, 789–801 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
8.Tester, M. & Langridge, P. Breeding technologies to increase crop production in a changing world. Science 327, 818–822 (2010).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
9.Rosegrant, M. W. & Cline, S. A. Global food security: challenges and polices. Science 302, 1917–1919 (2003).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
10.Li, Y., Suontama, M., Burdon, R. D. & Dungey, H. S. Genotype by environment interactions in forest tree breeding: review of methodology and perspective on research and application. Tree Genet. Genomes 13, 60 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
11.Mishra, R. M. et al. Crossover interactions for grain yield in multienvironmental trials of winter wheat. Crop Sci. 46, 1291–1298 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
12.Allard, R. W. & Bradshaw, A. D. Implications of genotype–environmental interactions in applied plant breeding. Crop Sci. 4, 503–508 (1964).Article 

Google Scholar 
13.Reynolds, M. P., Hays, D. & Chapman, S. Breeding for adaptation to heat and drought stress. in Climate Change and Crop Production (ed. Reynolds, M. P.) 71–91 (CABI, 2010).14.Leon, N., Jannink, J., Edwards, J. W. & Kaeppler, S. M. Introduction to a special issue on genotype by environment interaction. Crop Sci. 56, 2081–2089 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
15.Reynolds, M. & Langridge, P. Physiological breeding. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol. 31, 162–171 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
16.Gourdji, S. M., Mathews, K. L., Reynolds, M., Crossa, J. & Lobell, D. B. An assessment of wheat yield sensitivity and breeding gains in hot environments. Proc. R. Soc. B. 2018, 20122190 (2012).
Google Scholar 
17.Pingali, P. L. Green revolution: impacts, limits, and the path ahead. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109, 12302–12308 (2012).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
18.Sharma, R. C. et al. Genetic gains for grain yield in CIMMYT spring bred wheat across international environment. Crop Sci. 52, 1522–1533 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
19.Boehm Jr, J. D., Ibba, M., Kiszonas, A. & Morris, C. F. End-use quality of CIMMYT-derived soft kernel durum wheat germplasm. II. Dough strength and pan bread quality. Crop Sci. 57, 1485–1498 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
20.Lillemo, M., van Ginkel, M., Trethowan, R. M., Hernandez, E. & Crossa, J. Differential adaptation of CIMMYT bread wheat to global high temperature environments. Crop Sci. 45, 2443–2453 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
21.Manes, Y. et al. Genetic yield gains of the CIMMYT international semi-arid wheat yield trials from 1994 to 2010. Crop Sci. 52, 1543–1552 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
22.You, L. et al. Spatial Production Allocation Model (SPAM) 2005 V3.2 International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), International Institute fo Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) (2017).23.Finlay, K. W. & Wilkinson, G. N. The analysis of adaptation in a plant-breeding programme. Aus. J. Agric. Res. 14, 742–754 (1963).Article 

Google Scholar 
24.De los Campos et al. A data-driven simulation platform to predict cultivars’ performance under uncertain weather conditions. Nat. Commun. 11, 4876 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
25.Lantican, M. A. et al. Impacts of International Wheat Improvement Research 1994–2014 (CIMMYT, 2016).26.Dreccer, M. F., Bonnett, D. & Lafarge, T. Plant breeding under a changing climate. in Encyclopedia of Sustainability Science and Technology (ed. Meyers, R. A.) 8013–8024 (Springer, 2012).27.Laiding, F., Drobek, T. & Meyer, U. Genotypic and environmental variability of yield for cultivars from 30 different crops in German official variety trials. Plant Breed. 127, 541–547 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
28.Allard, R. W. Principles of Plant Breeding 2nd edn (John Wiley & Sons, 1999).29.Kusmec, A., Srinivasan, S., Nettleton, D. & Schnable, P. S. Distinct genetic architectures for phenotype means and plasticities in Zea mays. Nat. Plants 3, 715–723 (2017).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
30.Gauch, H. G. Statistical Analysis of Regional Yield Trials: AMMI Analysis of Factorial Designs (Elsevier, 1992). More

1.Lapola, D. M. et al. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115, 11671–11679 (2018).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
2.Phillips, O. L., Brienen, R. J. W. & the RAINFOR collaboration. Carbon Balance Manag. 12, 1 (2017)..3.Hubau, W. et al. Nature 579, 80–87 (2020).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
4.Fleischer, K. et al. Nat. Geosci. 12, 736–741 (2019).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
5.Huntingford, C. et al. Nat. Geosci. 6, 268–273 (2013).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
6.Koch, A., Hubau, W. & Lewis, S. L. Earth’s Future 9, e2020EF001874 (2021).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
7.Eyring, V. et al. Geosci. Model Dev. 9, 1937–1958 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
8.Climate Change and Land: an IPCC Special Report on Climate Change, Desertification, Land Degradation, Sustainable Land Management, Food Security, and Greenhouse Gas Fluxes in Terrestrial Ecosystems. (IPCC, 2019).9.Friend, A. D. et al. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 3280–3285 (2014).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
10.Pugh, T. A. M. et al. Biogeosciences https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-17-3961-2020 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
11.Hartmann, H., Adams, H. D., Anderegg, W. R. L., Jansen, S. & Zeppel, M. J. B. New Phytol. 205, 965–969 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
12.Scheiter, S., Langan, L. & Higgins, S. I. New Phytol. 198, 957–969 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar  More

Species-level dataSpecies range maps were derived from BirdLife International and NatureServe50 and the IUCN51. The threat data were from the IUCN Threats Classification Scheme (Version 3.2), which contains 11 primary threat classes and almost 50 subclasses52. In Red List assessments, assessors assign those threats that impact the species. For birds, the scope of the impact is also recorded categorically as the percentage of the species population that the threat impacts (unknown, negligible, 90%) and the severity, describing the scale of the impact on population declines: unknown, no decline, negligible declines, fluctuations, slow but significant declines (30%).Model development approachWe designed our analytical framework with three considerations in mind. First, the threat location information is limited: for each species, the data only describe whether a species is threatened by a given activity anywhere within its range (data on the timing, scope and severity of threats are available only for birds and are not spatially explicit). Second, we wanted to compare the spatial patterns of threat against independent data on spatial distributions of human activities. Third, for many activities, the relationship between human activity (for example, hunting or invasive species and diseases) and biodiversity response is poorly understood. We therefore chose not to incorporate known patterns of human activity as explanatory variables in our models.In the absence of global datasets on the spatial patterns of the impact probability of each threat, we used a simulation approach to develop our models and assess the ability of different model parameterizations to reproduce our simulated threat. This process had four steps (Extended Data Fig. 1).Simulated threat intensity mapsFirst, we simulated a continuous synthetic threat across sub-Saharan Africa. The concept behind this is that a credible model should be able to reproduce a ‘true’, synthetic threat pattern on the basis of information comparable to that available in the Red List. To test this, we generated a set of synthetic, continuous surfaces of threat intensity with different levels of spatial autocorrelation and random variation (Supplementary Fig. 1). This was achieved by taking a grid of 50 km × 50 km (2,500 km2) pixels across the Afrotropic biogeographic realm (i.e., sub-Saharan Africa). Threat intensity was modelled as a vector of random variables, Z, one for each pixel i, generated with a correlation structure given by the distance matrix between points weighted by a scalar value, r, indicating the degree of correlation (equations (1–3)). Four values of r were used: 1 × 10−6, which yields very strong autocorrelation; 1 × 10−4, which yields strong autocorrelation; 0.05, which yields moderate autocorrelation; and 0.3, which produces a low-correlation, localized pattern (Supplementary Fig. 1). The model included the following equations:$${mathbf{Z}}(r) = U^{mathrm{T}}{mathrm{Norm}}left( {n,0,1} right)$$
(1)
$$W = UU^{ast}$$
(2)
$$W = {mathrm{e}}^{left( { – rD} right)}$$
(3)
where r is a scalar determining the degree of spatial autocorrelation (as r decreases, the autocorrelation increases), D is the Euclidean distance matrix between each pair of pixels, W is the matrix of weights for the threat intensity, U and U* are the upper triangular factors of the Choleski decomposition of W and its conjugate transpose, UT is the transpose of U and n is the number of pixels.We chose the Afrotropic biogeographic realm (sub-Saharan Africa) as our geography within which to develop the modelling approach because it permitted more rapid iterations than a global-scale simulation while also retaining characteristics of importance for the model evaluation such as strong environmental gradients and heterogeneity in species richness. However, for the simulation, no information from the geography or overlapping species ranges was used, except the spatial configuration of the polygons. Thus, the use of the Afrotropic realm was purely to avoid generating thousands of complex geometries for the purpose of the simulation. Using a real geography and actual species ranges ensures that our simulation contains conditions that are observed in reality (for example, areas of high and low species richness also observed in the real world). We took the simulated threat maps generated through this process to be our ‘true’ likelihood of a randomly drawn species that occurs in that location being impacted by the synthetic threat (Supplementary Fig. 1).Simulating the red-listing processSecond, we wanted to simulate the red-listing process whereby experts evaluate whether a threat is impacting a species on the basis of the overall threat intensity within its range. For this, we used the range maps for all mammal species in Africa and assigned a binary threat classification (that is, affected or not affected) to each species on the basis of the values of the synthetic threat within each species’ range. We assumed that the binary assessment of threat for a species is based on whether the level of impact across a proportion of its range is judged as significant. This step was intended to replicate the real red-listing process, where assessors define threats that impact the species on the basis of an assessment of the information available on threatening mechanisms and species responses. In practice, this was done by overlaying the real range maps for mammals over the four simulated threat surfaces and assessing the intensity of synthetic threat within each species range map. We wanted to assign species impacts considering that species will be more likely to be impacted if a greater part of their range has a high threat intensity. Understanding how to set a threshold for what intensity would constitute sufficient threat to be assessed as affected is a complicated exercise. We thus tested three thresholds to capture different assumptions. These thresholds were chosen after discussion with leading experts on the red-listing process. More specifically, we calculated the 25th, 50th and 75th percentiles of threat intensity across pixels within the species range. We then used a stochastic test to convert these quantiles to binary threat class, C. For each species, we produced a set of ten draws from a uniform distribution bounded by 0 and 1. If over half of the draws were lower than the threat intensity quantile, the species was classified as threatened for that percentile.The above simulation assumes perfect knowledge of the threat intensities across the species range, which might not always be the case in the actual red-listing process. In real life, certain areas within species ranges are less well known for a suite of different reasons. To incorporate some uncertainty about the knowledge of the red-listing experts about the ‘true’ threat intensity, we constructed a layer to describe the spatial data uncertainty associated with the Red List. This aspect was intended to simulate the imperfect knowledge of the simulated ‘Red List assessors’. This layer was calculated as the proportion of species present in a given location that are categorized as Data Deficient—in other words, there is insufficient information known about the species to assess its extinction risk using the IUCN Red List Criteria (Extended Data Fig. 7). Then, when calculating the 25th, 50th and 75th percentiles of threat intensity across each range, we weighted this calculation by one minus the proportion of Data Deficient species, so that more uncertain places (those with a greater proportion of Data Deficient species) contributed less to the calculation than locations where knowledge was more certain. These were then converted to a binary threat class accounting for uncertainty in expert knowledge among the simulated ‘assessors’, CUncertain, using the same stochastic process described above for the calculation of C.This step produced, for each species, a threat classification analogous to the threat classification assigned by experts as part of the IUCN Red List process. Six sets of threat classifications were produced for each synthetic threat surface, on the basis of the 25th, 50th and 75th percentiles with perfect (C0.25, C0.5 and C0.75) or uncertain (CUncertain-0.25, CUncertain-0.5 and CUncertain-0.75) spatial knowledge.Model formulation and selectionThird, using all species polygons with assigned threat assessments from step 2 (that is, affected or not affected), we fitted nine candidate models and predicted the estimated probability of impact for each grid cell. Then, in a fourth step, we compared the predicted probabilities of impact produced in step 3 with the original synthetic threat maps created in step 1 to test the predictive ability of our models.The Red List threat assessment does not contain information on where in the range the impact occurs. Therefore, a species with a very small range provides higher spatial precision about the location of the impact, whereas a species with a large range may be impacted anywhere within a wide region. To address this lack of precision in the impact location, we took the area of each species range to serve as a proxy for the spatial certainty of the impact information. The certainty that a species was impacted or not impacted in a given cell depended on its range size, R. The models we evaluated therefore incorporated R in different ways (Supplementary Table 1).The models were fitted as a binomial regression with a logit link function. For each pixel, the model predicts the probability of impact, PTh—in other words, the probability that if you sampled a species at random from those that occur in that pixel, the species would be impacted by the activity being considered. To account for uncertainties in the simulation of the threat assessment process (thresholds for impact and perfect or imperfect knowledge), models were fitted to the six sets of threat codes (C0.25, C0.5, C0.75, CUncertain-0.25, CUncertain-0.5 and CUncertain-0.75), and the root mean squared error (RMSE) was calculated between PTh and the simulated threat intensity, Z(r), for each value of r. For each simulation, we ranked the different models according to their model fit as measured by the RMSE. We assessed these ranks across all simulations and sets of threat codes. We evaluated the models on the basis of the ranks of RMSE, across the threat code sets and threat intensity maps. Rank distributions for each model are shown in Extended Data Fig. 2, and the results from these models are shown in Supplementary Tables 1 and 2.All models were correlated (Pearson’s r2  > 0.5), albeit with some variation between model types and across the simulation parameters (Supplementary Fig. 2). However, some models had greater predictive accuracy when evaluated using the RMSE. The top four ranking models were, in order of decreasing summed rank, (1) inverse of cube root of range size as a weight, (2) inverse 2.5 root of range size as a weight, (3) inverse square root of range size as a weight and (4) inverse natural logarithm of range size as a weight. The fact that these four models showed good model fit suggests that the best model structure had a measure of range size as a weight but that the model was not particularly sensitive to the transformation of range size.The best-fitting model across the range of simulation parameters was an intercept-only logistic regression where the response variable was the binary threat code (1 = threatened, 0 = not threatened) for each species in the pixel and where the inverse cube root of the range size of each species was used as a weight. The model was concordant across the set of simulated datasets with a relationship that was predominantly linear with r2 between 0.47 and 0.7, depending on simulation parameters for Z(r) in 0.05, 10−4 and 10−6, centred around unity and with the RMSE ranging between 0.129 and 0.337 depending on simulation parameters (Supplementary Figs. 2 and 3). The choice of the inverse cube root range size weight was based on the performance of this against eight other model types (Supplementary Fig. 4 and Supplementary Table 1).We conducted a decomposition of variance in model performance using a binomial regression model, with RMSE as the dependent variable and model type, knowledge level and autocorrelation structure as the independent factorial variables. This showed that knowledge about the threats underlying each species range and how that threat information is used in the assessment explained the vast majority (94.7%) of the variation in RMSE outcomes (Supplementary Fig. 4).For birds, further information on the scope of the threat was available as an ordinal variable describing the fraction of range that the threat covers. We explored the use of scope in our models but concluded that to avoid arbitrary decisions about the scope of non-threatened species (where they are either not threatened anywhere or threatened in only a small part of their range), and for consistency with other taxonomic groups, we would model birds using the same model structure as used for mammals and amphibians (see the Supplementary Methods for further details).Mapping probability of impactOnce the best-performing model was identified using the simulated data, we then used this model on the actual Red List threat and range data to develop threat maps. This model produced threat maps for each taxonomic group (amphibians, birds and mammals) of the probability of impact, PTh, for each individual threat. For a given pixel, threat and taxonomic group, this estimates the probability that a randomly sampled species with a range overlapping with that pixel is being impacted by the threat, while taking into account spatial imprecision in the Red List data.Threat maps were generated using range map data and threat assessments from the IUCN Red List18. We intersected range maps for 22,898 extant terrestrial amphibians (n = 6,458), birds (n = 10,928; excluding the spatial areas within the range that are associated with ‘Passage’—where the species is known or thought very likely to occur regularly during relatively short periods of the year on migration) and mammals (n = 5,512; including those with uncertain ranges) with a global 50 km × 50 km (2,500 km2) resolution, equal-area grid for the terrestrial world. This provided, for each 50 km × 50 km pixel, a list of the species whose range overlapped it, along with the associated range size of each species. For each pixel and taxonomic group (amphibians, birds and mammals) independently, we then modelled the probability of impact, PTh,Activity (for example, PTh,Logging for logging, PTh,Agriculture for agriculture or PTh,Pollution for pollution), for each of the six threats: agriculture, hunting and trapping, logging, pollution, invasive species and diseases, and climate change. We focused on these as the six main threats as defined by the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services4, but our methodological framework is flexible and could be expanded to other threats in the IUCN classification19. We used only taxonomic groups with a sufficiently high total number of species and where they have been comprehensively assessed so that potential biases associated with the groups of species prioritized by experts are avoided.Calculating uncertainties for the threat probabilityWe estimated a measure of uncertainty associated with our impact probability predictions using maps of the proportions of Data Deficient species in each cell within each taxonomic class (amphibians, birds or mammals) as a measure of knowledge certainty in that cell. The rationale for this approach is that places with more Data Deficient species with unknown threatened status should have greater uncertainty in the probability of impact. We therefore created greater variation in the data where there were more Data Deficient species. We used the knowledge-certainty map to probabilistically draw a sample of 100 threat codes for each species, on the basis of the median Data Deficiency across the species range. The random sample changed the species threat code with a probability related to the proportion of Data Deficient species within its range. If the median proportion of Data Deficient species was zero, then we assumed that there was a small probability (0.005) that the species could have been incorrectly coded. Where the median proportion was greater than zero, the probability increased linearly. So, for a species with 5% Data Deficient species within its range, the sample changed the species threat code with a probability close to 5%; if the median proportion was equal to 0.5, then the probability of the species being incorrectly assigned was equal to 0.5. We then fitted the impact probability model with each of the 100 species threat codes and generated a distribution of predicted threat probabilities in each grid cell, from which we took the 95% confidence intervals as the uncertainty estimates (Extended Data Figs. 8–10).Evaluating modelled threat patternsWe evaluated the spatial patterns of threat on the basis of the real Red List threat assessment data against empirical data in two independent ways. First, we compared the probability of impact from logging and agriculture combined within forested biomes (that is, corresponding to remotely detected forest loss, which we refer to as the probability of impact from forest loss, PTh,Forest-loss) with data on forest cover change10. Forest cover change was aggregated from their native 30 m × 30 m (900 m2) resolution pixels to our 50 km × 50 km resolution pixels using Google Earth Engine. For each 50 km × 50 km pixel, we calculated the total area lost between 2000 and 2013 and the area lost as a proportion of the area in 2000. We restricted our analysis to forested biomes: (1) tropical and subtropical moist broadleaf forests, (2) tropical and subtropical dry broadleaf forests, (3) tropical and subtropical coniferous forests, (4) temperate broadleaf and mixed forests, (5) temperate coniferous forests and (6) boreal forests/taiga, following the World Wildlife Fund’s ecoregions classification53. The relationship between forest loss and the probability of impact from forest loss as captured by agriculture and logging overall showed a significant positive correlation: PTh,Forest-loss increased with increasing forest cover loss (P  More

1.Huang Y, Liu Q, Jia WQ, Yan CR, Wang J. Agricultural plastic mulching as a source of microplastics in the terrestrial environment. Environ Pollut. 2020;260:114096.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
2.Li WF, Wufuer R, Duo J, Wang SZ, Luo YM, Zhang DY, et al. Microplastics in agricultural soils: Extraction and characterization after different periods of polythene film mulching in an arid region. Sci Total Environ. 2020;749:141420.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
3.Weithmann N, Moller JN, Loder MGJ, Piehl S, Laforsch C, Freitag R. Organic fertilizer as a vehicle for the entry of microplastic into the environment. Sci Adv. 2018;4:eaap8060.PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
4.Jiang JH, Wang XW, Ren HY, Cao GL, Xie GJ, Xing DF, et al. Investigation and fate of microplastics in wastewater and sludge filter cake from a wastewater treatment plant in China. Sci Total Environ. 2020;746:141378.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
5.Evangeliou N, Grythe H, Klimont Z, Heyes C, Eckhardt S, Lopez-Aparicio S, et al. Atmospheric transport is a major pathway of microplastics to remote regions. Nat Commun. 2020;11:3381.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
6.Roblin B, Ryan M, Vreugdenhil A, Aherne J. Ambient atmospheric deposition of anthropogenic microfibers and microplastics on the western periphery of Europe (Ireland). Environ Sci Technol. 2020;54:11100–8.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
7.Xu CY, Zhang BB, Gu CJ, Shen CS, Yin SS, Aamir M, et al. Are we underestimating the sources of microplastic pollution in terrestrial environment? J Hazard Mater. 2020;400:123228.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
8.Machado AAD, Kloas W, Zarfl C, Hempel S, Rillig MC. Microplastics as an emerging threat to terrestrial ecosystems. Glob Change Biol. 2018;24:1405–16.Article 

Google Scholar 
9.Rillig MC, Lehmann A. Microplastic in terrestrial ecosystems. Science. 2020;368:1430–1.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
10.Fuller S, Gautam A. A procedure for measuring microplastics using pressurized fluid extraction. Environ Sci Technol. 2016;50:5774–80.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
11.Boots B, Russell CW, Green DS. Effects of microplastics in soil ecosystems: above and below ground. Environ Sci Technol. 2019;53:11496–506.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
12.Li H-Z, Zhu D, Lindhardt JH, Lin S-M, Ke X, Cui L. Long-term fertilization history alters effects of microplastics on soil properties, microbial communities, and functions in diverse farmland ecosystem. Environ Sci Technol. 2021;55:4658–68.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
13.Machado AAD, Lau CW, Kloas W, Bergmann J, Bacheher JB, Faltin E, et al. Microplastics can change soil properties and affect plant performance. Environ Sci Technol. 2019;53:6044–52.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
14.Zhu D, Chen Q-L, An X-L, Yang X-R, Christie P, Ke X, et al. Exposure of soil collembolans to microplastics perturbs their gut microbiota and alters their isotopic composition. Soil Biol Biochem. 2018;116:302–10.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
15.Amaral-Zettler LA, Zettler ER, Mincer TJ. Ecology of the plastisphere. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2020;18:139–51.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
16.Arias-Andres M. Who is where in the plastisphere, and why does it matter? Mol Ecol Resour. 2020;20:617–9.Article 

Google Scholar 
17.Wright RJ, Langille MGI, Walker TR. Food or just a free ride? A meta-analysis reveals the global diversity of the plastisphere. ISME J. 2020;15:789–806.PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
18.Yang Y, Liu W, Zhang Z, Grossart H-P, Gadd GM. Microplastics provide new microbial niches in aquatic environments. Appl Microbiol Biot. 2020;104:6501–11.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
19.Bhagwat G, Zhu Q, O’Connor W, Subashchandrabose S, Grainge I, Knight R, et al. Exploring the composition and functions of plastic microbiome using whole-genome sequencing. Environ Sci Technol. 2021;55:4899–913.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
20.Arias-Andres M, Klumper U, Rojas-Jimenez K, Grossart HP. Microplastic pollution increases gene exchange in aquatic ecosystems. Environ Pollut. 2018;237:253–61.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
21.Zhou J, Gui H, Banfield CC, Wen Y, Zang H, Dippold MA, et al. The microplastisphere: Biodegradable microplastics addition alters soil microbial community structure and function. Soil Biol Biochem. 2021;156:108211.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
22.Hernando-Amado S, Coquet TM, Baquero F, Martinez JL. Defining and combating antibiotic resistance from one health and global health perspectives. Nat Microbiol. 2019;4:1432–42.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
23.Hu H-W, Wang J-T, Singh BK, Liu Y-R, Chen Y-L, Zhang Y-J, et al. Diversity of herbaceous plants and bacterial communities regulates soil resistome across forest biomes. Environ Microbiol. 2018;20:3186–200.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
24.Zhu Y-G, Zhao Y, Zhu D, Gillings M, Penuelas J, Ok YS, et al. Soil biota, antimicrobial resistance and planetary health. Environ Int. 2019;131:105059.PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
25.Bank MS, Ok YS, Swarzenski PW. Microplastic’s role in antibiotic resistance. Science. 2020;369:1315.PubMed 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
26.Wu X, Pan J, Li M, Li Y, Bartlam M, Wang Y. Selective enrichment of bacterial pathogens by microplastic biofilm. Water Res. 2019;165:114979.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
27.Yang K, Chen Q-L, Chen M-L, Li H-Z, Liao H, Pu Q, et al. Temporal dynamics of antibiotic resistome in the plastisphere during microbial colonization. Environ Sci Technol. 2020;54:11322–32.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
28.Yang YY, Liu GH, Song WJ, Ye C, Lin H, Li Z, et al. Plastics in the marine environment are reservoirs for antibiotic and metal resistance genes. Environ Int. 2019;123:79–86.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
29.Lu X-M, Lu P-Z, Liu X-P. Fate and abundance of antibiotic resistance genes on microplastics in facility vegetable soil. Sci Total Environ. 2020;709:136276.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
30.Yan XY, Yang XY, Tang Z, Fu JJ, Chen FM, Zhao Y, et al. Downward transport of naturally-aged light microplastics in natural loamy sand and the implication to the dissemination of antibiotic resistance genes. Environ Pollut. 2020;262:114270.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
31.Bahram M, Hildebrand F, Forslund SK, Anderson JL, Soudzilovskaia NA, Bodegom PM, et al. Structure and function of the global topsoil microbiome. Nature. 2018;560:233–7.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
32.Zhu D, Ding J, Yin Y, Ke X, O’Connor P, Zhu Y-G. Effects of earthworms on the microbiomes and antibiotic resistomes of detritus fauna and phyllospheres. Environ Sci Technol. 2020;54:6000–8.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
33.Zhu Y-G, Zhao Y, Li B, Huang C-L, Zhang S-Y, Yu S, et al. Continental-scale pollution of estuaries with antibiotic resistance genes. Nat Microbiol. 2017;2:16270.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
34.Zhou J, Ning D. Stochastic community assembly: does it matter in microbial ecology? Microbiol Mol Biol R 2017;81:e00002–17.Article 

Google Scholar 
35.Ogonowski M, Motiei A, Ininbergs K, Hell E, Gerdes Z, Udekwu KI, et al. Evidence for selective bacterial community structuring on microplastics. Environ Microbiol. 2018;20:2796–808.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
36.Rillig MC, Ryo M, Lehmann A, Aguilar-Trigueros CA, Buchert S, Wulf A, et al. The role of multiple global change factors in driving soil functions and microbial biodiversity. Science. 2019;366:886–90.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
37.Alster CJ, von Fischer JC, Allison SD, Treseder KK. Embracing a new paradigm for temperature sensitivity of soil microbes. Glob Change Biol. 2020;26:3221–9.Article 

Google Scholar 
38.de Nijs EA, Hicks LC, Leizeaga A, Tietema A, Rousk J. Soil microbial moisture dependences and responses to drying-rewetting: the legacy of 18 years drought. Glob Change Biol. 2019;25:1005–15.Article 

Google Scholar 
39.Li MM, Ray P, Teets C, Pruden A, Xia K, Knowlton KF. Short communication: Increasing temperature and pH can facilitate reductions of cephapirin and antibiotic resistance genes in dairy manure slurries. J Dairy Sci. 2020;103:2877–82.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
40.Luo T, Wang Y, Pandey P. The removal of moisture and antibiotic resistance genes in dairy manure by microwave treatment. Environ Sci Pollut R. 2021;28:6675–83.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
41.Yun H, Liang B, Ding Y, Li S, Wang Z, Khan A, et al. Fate of antibiotic resistance genes during temperature-changed psychrophilic anaerobic digestion of municipal sludge. Water Res. 2021;194:116926.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
42.Mahnert A, Moissl-Eichinger C, Zojer M, Bogumil D, Mizrahi I, Rattei T, et al. Man-made microbial resistances in built environments. Nat Commun. 2019;10:968.PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
43.Zhu Y-G, Johnson TA, Su J-Q, Qiao M, Guo G-X, Stedtfeld RD, et al. Diverse and abundant antibiotic resistance genes in Chinese swine farms. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2013;110:3435–40.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
44.Zhang Y-J, Hu H-W, Chen Q-L, Singh BK, Yan H, Chen D, et al. Transfer of antibiotic resistance from manure-amended soils to vegetable microbiomes. Environ Int. 2019;130:104912.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
45.Zhou S-Y-D, Zhu D, Giles M, Daniell T, Neilson R, Yang X-R. Does reduced usage of antibiotics in livestock production mitigate the spread of antibiotic resistance in soil, earthworm guts, and the phyllosphere? Environ Int. 2020;136:105359.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
46.Chen Y, Leng Y, Liu X, Wang J. Microplastic pollution in vegetable farmlands of suburb Wuhan, central China. Environ Pollut. 2020;257:113449.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
47.Xu B, Liu F, Cryder Z, Huang D, Lu Z, He Y, et al. Microplastics in the soil environment: Occurrence, risks, interactions and fate—A review. Crit Rev Env Sci Tec. 2020;50:2175–222.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
48.Albright MBN, Martiny JBH. Dispersal alters bacterial diversity and composition in a natural community. ISME J. 2018;12:296–9.PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
49.Zhu D, An X-L, Chen Q-L, Yang X-R, Christie P, Ke X, et al. Antibiotics disturb the microbiome and increase the incidence of resistance genes in the gut of a common soil collembolan. Environ Sci Technol. 2018;52:3081–90.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
50.Zhu D, Delgado-Baquerizo M, Su J-Q, Ding J, Li H, Gillings MR, et al. Deciphering potential roles of earthworms in mitigation of antibiotic resistance in the soils from diverse ecosystems. Environ Sci Technol. 2021;55:7445–55.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
51.Berg M, Stenuit B, Ho J, Wang A, Parke C, Knight M, et al. Assembly of the Caenorhabditis elegans gut microbiota from diverse soil microbial environments. ISME J 2016;10:1998–2009.PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
52.Liu C, Li H, Zhang Y, Si D, Chen Q. Evolution of microbial community along with increasing solid concentration during high-solids anaerobic digestion of sewage sludge. Bioresour Technol. 2016;216:87–94.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
53.Zhu D, Xiang Q, Yang X-R, Ke X, O’Connor P, Zhu Y-G. Trophic transfer of antibiotic resistance genes in a soil detritus food chain. Environ Sci Technol. 2019;53:7770–81.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
54.Edgar RC. UPARSE: highly accurate OTU sequences from microbial amplicon reads. Nat Methods. 2013;10:996–8.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
55.Bokulich NA, Kaehler BD, Rideout JR, Dillon M, Bolyen E, Knight R, et al. Optimizing taxonomic classification of marker-gene amplicon sequences with QIIME 2’s q2-feature-classifier plugin. Microbiome 2018;6:90.PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

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

Google Scholar 
57.Li H, Zhou X-Y, Yang X-R, Zhu Y-G, Hong Y-W, Su J-Q. Spatial and seasonal variation of the airborne microbiome in a rapidly developing city of China. Sci Total Environ. 2019;665:61–8.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
58.Chen S, Zhou Y, Chen Y, Gu J. fastp: an ultra-fast all-in-one FASTQ preprocessor. Bioinformatics 2018;34:884–90.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
59.Noguchi H, Park J, Takagi T. MetaGene: prokaryotic gene finding from environmental genome shotgun sequences. Nucleic Acids Res. 2006;34:5623–30.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
60.Sloan WT, Lunn M, Woodcock S, Head IM, Nee S, Curtis TP. Quantifying the roles of immigration and chance in shaping prokaryote community structure. Environ Microbiol. 2006;8:732–40.PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
61.Brown LD, Cai TT, DasGupta A, Agresti A, Coull BA, Casella G, et al. Interval estimation for a binomial proportion—comment—rejoinder. Stat Sci. 2001;16:101–33.Article 

Google Scholar 
62.Burns AR, Stephens WZ, Stagaman K, Wong S, Rawls JF, Guillemin K, et al. Contribution of neutral processes to the assembly of gut microbial communities in the zebrafish over host development. ISME J. 2016;10:655–64.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
63.Dixon P. VEGAN, a package of R functions for community ecology. J Veg Sci. 2003;14:927–30.Article 

Google Scholar 
64.Wemheuer F, Taylor JA, Daniel R, Johnston E, Meinicke P, Thomas T, et al. Tax4Fun2: prediction of habitat-specific functional profiles and functional redundancy based on 16S rRNA gene sequences. Environ Microbiome. 2020;15:11.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
65.Frere L, Maignien L, Chalopin M, Huvet A, Rinnert E, Morrison H, et al. Microplastic bacterial communities in the Bay of Brest: Influence of polymer type and size. Environ Pollut. 2018;242:614–25.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
66.Parrish K, Fahrenfeld NL. Microplastic biofilm in fresh- and wastewater as a function of microparticle type and size class. Environ Sci-Wat Res. 2019;5:495–505.CAS 

Google Scholar 
67.Hossain MR, Jiang M, Wei Q, Leff LG. Microplastic surface properties affect bacterial colonization in freshwater. J Basic Micro. 2019;59:54–61.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
68.Hammarlund SP, Harcombe WR. Refining the stress gradient hypothesis in a microbial community. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2019;116:15760–62.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
69.Hesse E, O’Brien S, Luján AM, Sanders D, Bayer F, van Veen EM, et al. Stress causes interspecific facilitation within a compost community. Ecol Lett. 2021;00:1–9.
Google Scholar 
70.Kurtz ZD, Mueller CL, Miraldi ER, Littman DR, Blaser MJ, Bonneau RA. Sparse and compositionally robust inference of microbial ecological networks. PLoS Comput Biol. 2015;11:e1004226.PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
71.Zelezniak A, Andrejev S, Ponomarova O, Mende DR, Bork P, Patil KR. Metabolic dependencies drive species co-occurrence in diverse microbial communities. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2015;112:6449–54.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
72.Adair KL, Wilson M, Bost A, Douglas AE. Microbial community assembly in wild populations of the fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster. ISME J. 2018;12:959–72.PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
73.Bryant JA, Clemente TM, Viviani DA, Fong AA, Thomas KA, Kemp P, et al. Diversity and activity of communities inhabiting plastic debris in the North Pacific Gyre. Msystems. 2016;1:e00024–16.PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
74.Kwon J-H, Chang S, Hong SH, Shim WJ. Microplastics as a vector of hydrophobic contaminants: Importance of hydrophobic additives. Integr Environ Assess. 2017;13:494–9.Article 

Google Scholar 
75.Xiang Q, Zhu D, Chen Q-L, O’Connor P, Yang X-R, Qiao M, et al. Adsorbed sulfamethoxazole exacerbates the effects of polystyrene (similar to 2 mm) on gut microbiota and the antibiotic resistome of a soil collembolan. Environ Sci Technol. 2019;53:12823–34.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
76.Virsek MK, Lovsin MN, Koren S, Krzan A, Peterlin M. Microplastics as a vector for the transport of the bacterial fish pathogen species Aeromonas salmonicida. Mar Pollut Bull. 2017;125:301–9.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
77.Caruso G. Microplastics as vectors of contaminants. Mar Pollut Bull. 2019;146:921–4.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
78.MacLean RC, San Millan A. The evolution of antibiotic resistance. Science. 2019;365:1082–3.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
79.Li J, Zhang K, Zhang H. Adsorption of antibiotics on microplastics. Environ Pollut. 2018;237:460–7.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
80.Zhang H, Wang J, Zhou B, Zhou Y, Dai Z, Zhou Q, et al. Enhanced adsorption of oxytetracycline to weathered microplastic polystyrene: Kinetics, isotherms and influencing factors. Environ Pollut. 2018;243:1550–7.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
81.Stover CK, Pham XQ, Erwin AL, Mizoguchi SD, Warrener P, Hickey MJ, et al. Complete genome sequence of Pseudomonas aeruginosa PAO1, an opportunistic pathogen. Nature. 2000;406:959–64.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar  More

1.Wallenstein MD, Hall EK. A trait-based framework for predicting when and where microbial adaptation to climate change will affect ecosystem functioning. Biogeochemistry. 2012;109:35–47.Article 

Google Scholar 
2.Behm JE, Kiers ET. A phenotypic plasticity framework for assessing intraspecific variation in arbuscular mycorrhizal fungal traits. J Ecol. 2014;102:315–27.Article 

Google Scholar 
3.Relyea RA. Phenotypic plasticity in the interactions and evolution of species. Ecology. 2005;86:321–6.Article 

Google Scholar 
4.Matesanz S, Gianoli E, Valladares F. Global change and the evolution of phenotypic plasticity in plants. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2010;1206:35–55.PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
5.Nicotra AB, Atkin OK, Bonser SP, Davidson AM, Finnegan EJ, Mathesius U, et al. Plant phenotypic plasticity in a changing climate. Trends Plant Sci. 2010;15:684–92.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
6.Suding KN, Lavorel S, Chapin FS, Cornelissen JHC, Díaz S, Garnier E, et al. Scaling environmental change through the community-level: a trait-based response-and-effect framework for plants. Glob Chang Biol. 2008;14:1125–40.Article 

Google Scholar 
7.Sultan SE. Phenotypic plasticity for plant development, function and life history. Trends Plant Sci. 2000;5:537–42.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
8.Chevin LM, Gallet R, Gomulkiewicz R, Holt RD, Fellous S Phenotypic plasticity in evolutionary rescue experiments. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci. 2013;368:20120089.9.Valladares F, Matesanz S, Guilhaumon F, Araújo MB, Balaguer L, Benito-Garzón M, et al. The effects of phenotypic plasticity and local adaptation on forecasts of species range shifts under climate change. Ecol Lett. 2014;17:1351–64.PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
10.Slepecky RA, Starmer WT. Phenotypic plasticity in fungi: a review with observations on Aureobasidium pullulans. Mycologia. 2009;101:823–32.PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
11.Grimbergen AJ, Siebring J, Solopova A, Kuipers OP. Microbial bet-hedging: the power of being different. Curr Opin Microbiol. 2015;25:67–72.PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
12.Rong M, Zheng X, Ye M, Bai J, Xie X, Jin Y, et al. Phenotypic plasticity of staphylococcus aureus in liquid medium containing vancomycin. Front Microbiol. 2019;10:1–11.Article 

Google Scholar 
13.Schmidt K, van Oosterhout C, Collins S, Mock T. The role of phenotypic plasticity and epigenetics in experimental evolution with phytoplankton. Perspect Phycol. 2016;3:29–36.
Google Scholar 
14.Graham EB, Crump AR, Kennedy DW, Arntzen E, Fansler S, Purvine SO, et al. Multi’omics comparison reveals metabolome biochemistry, not microbiome composition or gene expression, corresponds to elevated biogeochemical function in the hyporheic zone. Sci Total Environ. 2018;642:742–53.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
15.Treseder KK, Lennon JT. Fungal traits that drive ecosystem dynamics on land. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev. 2015;79:243–62.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
16.Frac M, Hannula SE, Belka M, Jȩdryczka M. Fungal biodiversity and their role in soil health. Front Microbiol. 2018;9:1–9.Article 

Google Scholar 
17.Ritz K, Young IM. Interactions between soil structure and fungi. Mycologist. 2004;18:52–59.Article 

Google Scholar 
18.Kwon MJ, Haraguchi A, Kang H. Long-term water regime differentiates changes in decomposition and microbial properties in tropical peat soils exposed to the short-term drought. Soil Biol Biochem. 2013;60:33–44.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
19.Sardans J, Peñuelas J. Drought decreases soil enzyme activity in a Mediterranean Quercus ilex L. forest. Soil Biol Biochem. 2005;37:455–61.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
20.Hsu JP, Chen TH, Wang HH. A kinetic study of the growth of a Rhizopus colony. J Theor Biol. 1989;140:445–51.Article 

Google Scholar 
21.Baath E. Estimation of fungal growth rates in soil using 14C-acetate incorporation into ergosterol. Soil Biol Biochem. 2001;33:2011–8.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
22.Querejeta JI. Soil water retention and availability as influenced by mycorrhizal symbiosis: consequences for individual plants, communities, and ecosystems. Mycorrhizal mediation of soil. Elsevier; 2017. p. 299–317.23.Tisdall JM. Fungal hyphae and structural stability of soil. Aust J Soil Res. 1991;29:729–43.Article 

Google Scholar 
24.Augé RM, Stodola AJW, Tims JE, Saxton AM. Moisture retention properties of a mycorrhizal soil. Plant Soil. 2001;230:87–97.Article 

Google Scholar 
25.Chevin LM, Lande R, Mace GM. Adaptation, plasticity, and extinction in a changing environment: towards a predictive theory. PLoS Biol. 2010;8:e1000357.26.Rodriguez C, Dominguez A. The growth characteristics of Saccharomycopsis lipolytica: morphology and induction of mycelium formation. Can J Microbiol. 1984;30:605–12.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
27.De Vries FT, Liiri ME, Bjørnlund L, Bowker MA, Christensen S, Setälä HM, et al. Land use alters the resistance and resilience of soil food webs to drought. Nat Clim Chang. 2012;2:276–80.Article 

Google Scholar 
28.Xiong J, Peng F, Sun H, Xue X, Chu H. Divergent responses of soil fungi functional groups to short-term warming. Microb Ecol. 2014;68:708–15.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
29.Chevin LM, Collins S, Lefèvre F. Phenotypic plasticity and evolutionary demographic responses to climate change: taking theory out to the field. Funct Ecol. 2013;27:967–79.Article 

Google Scholar 
30.Beier S, Rivers AR, Moran MA, Obernosterer I. Phenotypic plasticity in heterotrophic marine microbial communities in continuous cultures. ISME J. 2015;9:1141–51.PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
31.Hall EK, Singer GA, Kainz MJ, Lennon JT. Evidence for a temperature acclimation mechanism in bacteria: an empirical test of a membrane-mediated trade-off. Funct Ecol. 2010;24:898–908.Article 

Google Scholar 
32.Lennon JT, Aanderud ZT, Lehmkuhl BK Jr, Mapping DRS. the niche space of soil microorganisms using taxonomy and traits. Ecology. 2016;93:1867–79.Article 

Google Scholar 
33.Glassman SI, Weihe C, Li J, Albright M, Looby CI, Martiny AC, et al. Decomposition responses to climate depend on microbial community composition. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2018;115:11994–9.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
34.Bárcenas‐Moreno G, Gómez‐Brandón M, Rousk J, Bååth E. Adaptation of soil microbial communities to temperature: comparison of fungi and bacteria in a laboratory experiment. Glob Chang Biol. 2009;15:2950–7.Article 

Google Scholar 
35.Geisseler D, Horwath WR, Scow KM. Soil moisture and plant residue addition interact in their effect on extracellular enzyme activity. Pedobiologia. 2011;54:71–78.Article 

Google Scholar 
36.Allison SD, Romero-Olivares AL, Lu L, Taylor JW, Treseder KK. Temperature acclimation and adaptation of enzyme physiology in Neurospora discreta. Fungal Ecol. 2018;35:78–86.Article 

Google Scholar 
37.Cross D, Kenerley CM. Modelling the growth of Trichoderma virens with limited sampling of digital images. J Appl Microbiol. 2004;97:486–94.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
38.Ramin KI, Allison SD. Bacterial tradeoffs in growth rate and extracellular enzymes. Front Microbiol. 2019;10:1–10.Article 

Google Scholar 
39.Martiny AC, Treseder K, Pusch G. Phylogenetic conservatism of functional traits in microorganisms. ISME J. 2013;7:830–8.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
40.Evans SE, Wallenstein MD. Climate change alters ecological strategies of soil bacteria. Ecol Lett. 2014;17:155–64.PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
41.Amend AS, Martiny AC, Allison SD, Berlemont R, Goulden ML, Lu Y, et al. Microbial response to simulated global change is phylogenetically conserved and linked with functional potential. ISME J. 2016;10:109–18.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
42.A’Bear AD, Jones TH, Kandeler E, Boddy L. Interactive effects of temperature and soil moisture on fungal-mediated wood decomposition and extracellular enzyme activity. Soil Biol Biochem. 2014;70:151–8.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
43.Alster CJ, German DP, Lu Y, Allison SD. Microbial enzymatic responses to drought and to nitrogen addition in a southern California grassland. Soil Biol Biochem. 2013;64:68–79.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
44.Alster CJ, Weller ZD, von Fischer JC. A meta‐analysis of temperature sensitivity as a microbial trait. Glob Chang Biol. 2018;24:4211–4224.45.Schneider T, Keiblinger KM, Schmid E, Sterflinger-Gleixner K, Ellersdorfer G, Roschitzki B, et al. Who is who in litter decomposition Metaproteomics reveals major microbial players and their biogeochemical functions. ISME J. 2012;6:1749–62.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
46.Luo L, Meng H, Gu JD. Microbial extracellular enzymes in biogeochemical cycling of ecosystems. J Environ Manage. 2017;197:539–49.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
47.Haas L. Conquests and historical identities in California, 1769–1936. 1995. University of California Press.48.KIZH Nation. KIZH NATION (Pronounced Keech), Gabrieleño Band Of Mission Indians. https://gabrielenoindians.org/. Accessed 23 Sep 2020.49.Kimball S, Goulden ML, Suding KN, Parker S. Altered water and nitrogen input shifts succession in a southern California coastal sage community. Ecol Appl. 2014;24:1390–404.PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
50.Potts DL, Suding KN, Winston GC, Rocha AV, Goulden ML. Ecological effects of experimental drought and prescribed fire in a southern California coastal grassland. J Arid Environ. 2012;81:59–66.Article 

Google Scholar 
51.Martiny JB, Martiny AC, Weihe C, Lu Y, Berlemont R, Brodie EL, et al. Microbial legacies alter decomposition in response to simulated global change. ISME J. 2017;11:490–9.PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
52.White TJ, Bruns T, Lee S, Taylor J. Amplification and direct sequencing of fungal ribosomal RNA genes for phylogenetics. In: Innis MA, Gelfand DH, Sninsky JJ, White TJ (eds). Pcr protocols: a guide to methods and applications. 1990. Academic Press, Inc., San Diego, California, USA; London, England, Uk., pp 315–22.53.Gardes M, Bruns TD. ITS primers with enhanced specificity for basidiomycetes ‐ application to the identification of mycorrhizae and rusts. Mol Ecol. 1993;2:113–8.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
54.Matulich KL, Weihe C, Allison SD, Amend AS, Berlemont R, Goulden ML, et al. Temporal variation overshadows the response of leaf litter microbial communities to simulated global change. ISME J. 2015;9:2477–89.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
55.Connor EW, Sandy M, Hawkes CV. Microbial tools in agriculture require an ecological context: Stress-dependent non-additive symbiont interactions. Agron J. 2017;109:917–26.Article 

Google Scholar 
56.Sinsabaugh RL, Carreiro MM, Alvarez S. Enzyme and microbial dynamics of litter decomposition. Enzymes in the Environment activity ecology and applications. Marcel Dekker, New York, Basel 2002; 249–65.57.Wohl DL, McArthur JV. Aquatic actinomycete-fungal interactions and their effects on organic matter decomposition: a microcosm stu in the dy. Microb Ecol. 2001;42:446–57.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
58.Alster CJ, Allison SD, Glassman SI, Martiny A, Treseder K. Exploring trait trade-offs for fungal decomposers in a Southern California grassland. Front Microbiol. 2021;12:665.Article 

Google Scholar 
59.Allison SD, Lu Y, Weihe C, Goulden ML, Martiny AC, Treseder KK, et al. Microbial abundance and composition influence litter decomposition response to environmental change. Ecology. 2013;94:714–25.PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
60.Shen Q, Kirschbaum MUF, Hedley MJ, Arbestain MC. Testing an alternative method for estimating the length of fungal hyphae using photomicrography and image processing. PLoS One. 2016;11:1–12.
Google Scholar 
61.Killham K. Soil Microbiology and Biochemistry. By EA PAUL and FE CLARK. 23×15 cm. Pp. xiii+340 with 108 text-figures. San Diego, CA, USA: Academic Press: 2nd Edition, 1996. Price h/b: £29.95, ISBN 0 12 546806 7. New Phytol. 1998;138: 563–6.62.Sylvia DM 3 Quantification of external hyphae of vesicular-arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi. Methods in microbiology. 1992. Elsevier, pp 53–65.63.Bakken LR, Olsen RA. Buoyant densities and dry-matter contents of microorganisms: conversion of a measured biovolume into biomass. Appl Environ Microbiol. 1983;45:1188–95.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
64.R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. 2020. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.65.Lenth RV. Response-surface methods in R, using RSM. J Stat Softw. 2009;32:1–17.Article 

Google Scholar 
66.Khuri AI. A general overview of response surface methodology. Biometrics Biostat Int J. 2017;5:87–93.
Google Scholar 
67.Aydar AY. Utilization of response surface methodology in optimization of extraction of plant materials. Statistical approaches with emphasis on design of experiments applied to chemical processes. InTech; 2018. p. 157–69.68.Brasil JL, Martins LC, Ev RR, Dupont J, Dias SLP, Sales JAA, et al. Factorial design for optimization of flow-injection preconcentration procedure for copper(II) determination in natural waters, using 2-aminomethylpyridine grafted silica gel as adsorbent and spectrophotometric detection. Int J Environ Anal Chem. 2005;85:475–91.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
69.Montgomery DC. Design and analysis of experiments, ninth. 2017. Wiley.70.Lenth R. emmeans: Estimated Marginal Means, aka Least-Squares Means. R Package version 133, 2019. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=emmeans71.Pagel M. Inferring historical patterns of biological evolution. Nature. 1999;401:877–84.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
72.Blomberg SP, Garland T, Ives AR. Testing for phylogenetic signal in comparative data: Behavioral traits are more labile. Evolution. 2003;57:717–45.Article 

Google Scholar 
73.Revell LJ. phytools: An R package for phylogenetic comparative biology (and other things). Methods Ecol Evol. 2012;3:217–23.Article 

Google Scholar 
74.Krause S, Le Roux X, Niklaus PA, Van Bodegom PM, Lennon JT, Bertilsson S, et al. Trait-based approaches for understanding microbial biodiversity and ecosystem functioning. Front Microbiol. 2014;5:251.PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
75.Green JL, Bohannan BJM, Whitaker RJ. Microbial biogeography: from taxonomy to traits. Science. 2008;320:1039–43.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
76.García FC, Bestion E, Warfield R, Yvon-Durochera G. Changes in temperature alter the relationship between biodiversity and ecosystem functioning. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2018;115:10989–94.PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
77.Pold G, DeAngelis KM. Up against the wall: the effects of climate warming on soil microbial diversity and the potential for feedbacks to the carbon cycle. Diversity. 2013;5:409–25.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
78.Nielsen UN, Wall DH, Six J. Soil biodiversity and the environment. Annu Rev Environ Resour. 2015;40:63–90.Article 

Google Scholar 
79.Griffiths BS, Ritz K, Bardgett RD, Cook R, Christensen S, Ekelund F, et al. Ecosystem response of pasture soil communities to fumigation-induced microbial diversity reductions: An examination of the biodiversity-ecosystem function relationship. Oikos. 2000;90:279–94.Article 

Google Scholar 
80.Goberna M, Navarro-Cano JA, Valiente-Banuet A, García C, Verdú M. Abiotic stress tolerance and competition-related traits underlie phylogenetic clustering in soil bacterial communities. Ecol Lett. 2014;17:1191–201.PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
81.Mayfield MM, Levine JM. Opposing effects of competitive exclusion on the phylogenetic structure of communities. Ecol Lett. 2010;13:1085–93.PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
82.Morrison EW, Pringle A, Van Diepen LTA, Frey SD. Simulated nitrogen deposition favors stress-tolerant fungi with low potential for decomposition. Soil Biol Biochem. 2018;125:75–85.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
83.Romero-Olivares AL, Meléndrez-Carballo G, Lago-Lestón A. Soil metatranscriptomes under long-term experimental warming and drying: fungi allocate resources to cell metabolic maintenance rather than decay. Front Microbiol. 2019;10:1–9.Article 

Google Scholar 
84.Malik AA, Martiny JBH, Brodie EL, Allison SD, Martiny AC. Defining trait-based microbial strategies with consequences for soil carbon cycling under climate change. ISME J. 2020;14:2236–47.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
85.Bradford MA. Thermal adaptation of decomposer communities in warming soils. Front Microbiol. 2013;4:4.Article 

Google Scholar 
86.Alster CJ, von Fischer JC, Allison SD, Treseder KK. Embracing a new paradigm for temperature sensitivity of soil microbes. Glob Chang Biol. 2020;26:1–9.Article 

Google Scholar 
87.Rafiq M, Hassan N, Rehman M, Hasan F. Adaptation mechanisms and applications of psychrophilic fungi. In: Tiquia-Arashiro SM, Grube M (eds). Fungi in extreme environments: ecological role and biotechnological significance. 2019. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 157–74.88.Alster CJ, Baas P, Wallenstein MD, Johnson NG, von Fischer JC. Temperature sensitivity as a microbial trait using parameters from macromolecular rate theory. Front Microbiol 2016;7:1821.89.Angilletta Jr MJ, Angilletta MJ. Thermal adaptation: a theoretical and empirical synthesis. 2009. Oxford University Press.90.Wallenstein M, Allison SD, Ernakovich J, Steinweg JM, Sinsabaugh R. Controls on the temperature sensitivity of soil enzymes: a key driver of in situ enzyme activity rates. Soil Enzymology. 2011. Springer Berlin/Heidelberg, pp 245–58.91.Allison SD, Weintraub MN, Gartner TB, Waldrop MP. Evolutionary-economic principles as regulators of soil enzyme production and ecosystem function. Soil Enzymology. 2011. Springer, pp 229–43. More

1.Solomon, S. et al. (eds.) IPCC: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Cambridge University Press, 2007).2.Ganopolski, A. & Calov, R. The role of orbital forcing, carbon dioxide and regolith in 100 kyr glacial cycles. Clim. Past 7, 1415–1425, https://doi.org/10.5194/cp-7-1415-2011 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
3.Timmermann, A. et al. Modeling Obliquity and CO2 Effects on Southern Hemisphere Climate during the Past 408 ka. J. Climate 27, 1863–1875, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-13-00311.1 (2013).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
4.Claussen, M. et al. Earth system models of intermediate complexity: closing the gap in the spectrum of climate system models. Climate Dynamics 18, 579–586, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-001-0200-1 (2002).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
5.Hijmans, R. J., Cameron, S. E., Parra, J. L., Jones, P. G. & Jarvis, A. Very high resolution interpolated climate surfaces for global land areas. International Journal of Climatology 25, 1965–1978, https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.1276 (2005).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
6.Brown, J. L., Hill, D. J., Dolan, A. M., Carnaval, A. C. & Haywood, A. M. PaleoClim, high spatial resolution paleoclimate surfaces for global land areas. Scientific Data 5, 180254, https://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2018.254 (2018).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
7.Lima-Ribeiro, M. S. et al. EcoClimate: a database of climate data from multiple models for past, present, and future for macroecologists and biogeographers. Biodiversity Informatics 10, https://doi.org/10.17161/bi.v10i0.4955 (2015).8.Fordham, D. A. et al. PaleoView: a tool for generating continuous climate projections spanning the last 21 000 years at regional and global scales. Ecography 40, 1348–1358, https://doi.org/10.1111/ecog.03031 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
9.Valdes, P. J. et al. The BRIDGE HadCM3 family of climate models: HadCM3@Bristol v1.0. Geosci. Model Dev. 10, 3715–3743, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-3715-2017 (2017).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
10.Armstrong, E., Hopcroft, P. O. & Valdes, P. J. A simulated Northern Hemisphere terrestrial climate dataset for the past 60,000 years. Sci Data 6, 1–16, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-019-0277-1 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
11.Beyer, R. M., Krapp, M. & Manica, A. High-resolution terrestrial climate, bioclimate and vegetation for the last 120,000 years. Scientific Data 7, 236, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-020-0552-1 (2020).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
12.Beyer, R., Krapp, M. & Manica, A. An empirical evaluation of bias correction methods for palaeoclimate simulations. Climate of the Past 16, 1493–1508, https://doi.org/10.5194/cp-16-1493-2020 (2020).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
13.Harris, I., Osborn, T. J., Jones, P. & Lister, D. Version 4 of the CRU TS monthly high-resolution gridded multivariate climate dataset. Sci Data 7, 1–18, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-020-0453-3 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
14.O’Donnell, M. S. & Ignizio, D. A. Bioclimatic predictors for supporting ecological applications in the conterminous United States. US Geological Survey Data Series 691 (2012).15.Kaplan, J. O. et al. Climate change and Arctic ecosystems: 2. Modeling, paleodata-model comparisons, and future projections. J. Geophys. Res. 108, 8171, https://doi.org/10.1029/2002JD002559 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
16.Singarayer, J. S. & Valdes, P. J. High-latitude climate sensitivity to ice-sheet forcing over the last 120kyr. Quaternary Science Reviews 29, 43–55, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2009.10.011 (2010).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
17.Davies-Barnard, T., Ridgwell, A., Singarayer, J. & Valdes, P. Quantifying the influence of the terrestrial biosphere on glacial–interglacial climate dynamics. Clim. Past 13, 1381–1401, https://doi.org/10.5194/cp-13-1381-2017 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
18.Bereiter, B. et al. Revision of the EPICA Dome C CO2 record from 800 to 600 kyr before present. Geophys. Res. Lett. 42, 2014GL061957, https://doi.org/10.1002/2014GL061957 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
19.Berger, A. & Loutre, M. F. Insolation values for the climate of the last 10 million years. Quaternary Science Reviews 10, 297–317, https://doi.org/10.1016/0277-3791(91)90033-Q (1991).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
20.Spratt, R. M. & Lisiecki, L. E. A Late Pleistocene sea level stack. Clim. Past 12, 1079–1092, https://doi.org/10.5194/cp-12-1079-2016 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
21.Peltier, W. R., Argus, D. F. & Drummond, R. Space geodesy constrains ice age terminal deglaciation: The global ICE-6G_c (VM5a) model. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth 120, 450–487, https://doi.org/10.1002/2014JB011176 (2014).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
22.Amante, C. & Eakins, B. ETOPO1 1 Arc-Minute Global Relief Model: Procedures, Data Sources and Analysis. National Geophysical Data Center, NOAA NOAA Technical Memorandum NESDIS NGDC-24, https://doi.org/10.7289/V5C8276M (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
23.Lehner, B. & Dőll, P. Development and validation of a global database of lakes, reservoirs and wetlands. Journal of Hydrology 296, 1–22, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2004.03.028 (2004).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
24.Araya-Melo, P. A., Crucifix, M. & Bounceur, N. Global sensitivity analysis of the Indian monsoon during the Pleistocene. Clim. Past 11, 45–61, https://doi.org/10.5194/cp-11-45-2015 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
25.Lord, N. S. et al. Emulation of long-term changes in global climate: application to the late Pliocene and future. Climate of the Past 13, 1539–1571, https://doi.org/10.5194/cp-13-1539-2017 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
26.Hoyt, D. V. Percent of Possible Sunshine and the Total Cloud Cover. Monthly Weather Review 105, 648–652, 10.1175/1520-0493(1977)1052.0.CO;2 (1977).27.Berger, A. L. Long-term variations of daily insolation and Quaternary climatic changes. J. Atm. Sci. 35, 2362–2367 (1978).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
28.Krapp, M. Terrestrial climate of the last 800,000 years, Open Science Framework, https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/8N43X (2021).29.Herzschuh, U. et al. Glacial legacies on interglacial vegetation at the Pliocene-Pleistocene transition in NE Asia. Nature Communications 7, 11967, https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms11967 (2016).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
30.Schulzweida, U. CDO User Guide. Zenodo https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3539275 (2019).31.Kőster, J. & Rahmann, S. Snakemake—a scalable bioinformatics workflow engine. Bioinformatics 28, 2520–2522, https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/bts480 (2012).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
32.Seabold, S. & Perktold, J. Statsmodels: Econometric and statistical modeling with python. In 9th Python in Science Conference (2010).33.Hunter, J. D. Matplotlib: A 2D graphics environment. Computing In Science & Engineering 9, 90–95, https://doi.org/10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 (2007).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
34.Met Office. Cartopy: a cartographic python library with a Matplotlib interface (2010–2015).35.Flyamer, I. et al. Phlya/adjustText: 0.8 beta. Zenodo https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3924114 (2020).36.Whitaker, J. et al. Unidata/netcdf4-python: version 1.5.5 release. Zenodo https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4308773 (2020).37.Harris, C. R. et al. Array programming with NumPy. Nature 585, 357–362, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 (2020).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
38.Reback, J. et al. pandas-dev/pandas: Pandas 1.0.3. Zenodo https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3715232 (2020).39.McKinney, W. Data Structures for Statistical Computing in Python. In Walt, S. v. d. & Millman, J. (eds.) Proceedings of the 9th Python in Science Conference, 56–61, https://doi.org/10.25080/Majora-92bf1922-00a (2010).40.Virtanen, P. et al. SciPy 1.0: fundamental algorithms for scientific computing in Python. Nature Methods 17, 261–272, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 (2020).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
41.Walt, Svd et al. scikit-image: image processing in Python. PeerJ 2, e453, https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.453 (2014).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
42.da Costa-Luis, C. et al. tqdm: A fast, Extensible Progress Bar for Python and CLI. Zenodo https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4531988 (2021).43.Past Interglacials Working Group of PAGES. Interglacials of the last 800,000 years. Rev. Geophys. 54, 2015RG000482, https://doi.org/10.1002/2015RG000482 (2016).44.Schaefer, G. et al. Planktic foraminiferal and sea surface temperature record during the last 1 Myr across the Subtropical Front, Southwest Pacific. Marine Micropaleontology 54, 191–212, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marmicro.2004.12.001 (2005).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
45.Ruddiman, W. F., Raymo, M. E., Martinson, D. G., Clement, B. M. & Backman, J. Pleistocene evolution: Northern hemisphere ice sheets and North Atlantic Ocean. Paleoceanography and Paleoclimatology 4, 353–412, https://doi.org/10.1029/PA004i004p00353 (1989).Article 

Google Scholar 
46.Nürnberg, D., Müller, A. & Schneider, R. R. Paleo-sea surface temperature calculations in the equatorial east Atlantic from Mg/Ca ratios in planktic foraminifera: A comparison to sea surface temperature estimates from U37K’, oxygen isotopes, and foraminiferal transfer function. Paleoceanography and Paleoclimatology 15, 124–134, https://doi.org/10.1029/1999PA000370 (2000).Article 

Google Scholar 
47.Horikawa, K., Murayama, M., Minagawa, M., Kato, Y. & Sagawa, T. Latitudinal and downcore (0–750 ka) changes in n-alkane chain lengths in the eastern equatorial Pacific. Quaternary Research 73, 573–582, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yqres.2010.01.001 (2010).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
48.Martrat, B. et al. Four Climate Cycles of Recurring Deep and Surface Water Destabilizations on the Iberian Margin. Science 317, 502–507, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1139994 (2007).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
49.Rincón-Martínez, D. & Leduc, G. Sea surface temperature calculated from alkenones for the last 285 ka with high-reolution Holocene of sediment core MD02-2529, Panama Basin. PANGAEA https://doi.org/10.1594/PANGAEA.777473 (2012).50.Rodrigues, T., Voelker, A. H. L., Grimalt, J. O., Abrantes, F. & Naughton, F. Iberian Margin sea surface temperature during MIS 15 to 9 (580–300 ka): Glacial suborbital variability versus interglacial stability. Paleoceanography 26, PA1204, https://doi.org/10.1029/2010PA001927 (2011).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
51.Hayward, B. W. et al. Planktic foraminifera-based sea-surface temperature record in the Tasman Sea and history of the Subtropical Front around New Zealand, over the last one million years. Marine Micropaleontology 82–83, 13–27, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marmicro.2011.10.003 (2012).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
52.Russon, T. et al. Inter-hemispheric asymmetry in the early Pleistocene Pacific warm pool. Geophysical Research Letters 37, https://doi.org/10.1029/2010GL043191 (2010).53.Bard, E., Rostek, F. & Sonzogni, C. Interhemispheric synchrony of the last deglaciation inferred from alkenone palaeothermometry. Nature 385, 707–710, https://doi.org/10.1038/385707a0 (1997).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
54.Rostek, F. et al. Reconstructing sea surface temperature and salinity using $delta{18}O$ and alkenone records. Nature 364, 319, https://doi.org/10.1038/364319a0 (1993).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
55.Caley, T. et al. High-latitude obliquity as a dominant forcing in the Agulhas current system. Clim. Past 7, 1285–1296, https://doi.org/10.5194/cp-7-1285-2011 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
56.Pahnke, K., Zahn, R., Elderfield, H. & Schulz, M. 340,000-Year Centennial-Scale Marine Record of Southern Hemisphere Climatic Oscillation. Science 301, 948–952, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1084451 (2003).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
57.Garidel–Thoron, T. d. et al. A multiproxy assessment of the western equatorial Pacific hydrography during the last 30 kyr. Paleoceanography 22, https://doi.org/10.1029/2006PA001269 (2005).58.Liu, Z., Altabet, M. A. & Herbert, T. D. Glacial-interglacial modulation of eastern tropical North Pacific denitrification over the last 1.8-Myr. Geophysical Research Letters 32, https://doi.org/10.1029/2005GL024439 (2005).59.Yamamoto, M., Yamamuro, M. & Tanaka, Y. The California current system during the last 136,000 years: response of the North Pacific High to precessional forcing. Quaternary Science Reviews 26, 405–414, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2006.07.014 (2007).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
60.Herbert, T. D. Collapse of the California Current During Glacial Maxima Linked to Climate Change on Land. Science 293, 71–76, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1059209 (2001).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
61.Schefuβ, E., Damsté, J. S. S. & Jansen, J. H. F. Forcing of tropical Atlantic sea surface temperatures during the mid-Pleistocene transition. Paleoceanography 19, https://doi.org/10.1029/2003PA000892 (2004).62.Etourneau, J., Martinez, P., Blanz, T. & Schneider, R. Pliocene–Pleistocene variability of upwelling activity, productivity, and nutrient cycling in the Benguela region. Geology 37, 871–874, https://doi.org/10.1130/G25733A.1 (2009).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
63.McClymont, E. L., Rosell-Melé, A., Giraudeau, J., Pierre, C. & Lloyd, J. M. Alkenone and coccolith records of the mid-Pleistocene in the south-east Atlantic: Implications for the U37K’ index and South African climate. Quaternary Science Reviews 24, 1559–1572, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2004.06.024 (2005).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
64.Martínez–Garcia, A. et al. Links between iron supply, marine productivity, sea surface temperature, and CO2 over the last 1.1 Ma. Paleoceanography 24, https://doi.org/10.1029/2008PA001657 (2009).65.Crundwell, M., Scott, G., Naish, T. & Carter, L. Glacial–interglacial ocean climate variability from planktonic foraminifera during the Mid-Pleistocene transition in the temperate Southwest Pacific, ODP Site 1123. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 260, 202–229, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.palaeo.2007.08.023 (2008).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
66.Hayward, B. W. et al. The effect of submerged plateaux on Pleistocene gyral circulation and sea-surface temperatures in the Southwest Pacific. Global and Planetary Change 63, 309–316, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloplacha.2008.07.003 (2008).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
67.Li, L. et al. A 4-Ma record of thermal evolution in the tropical western Pacific and its implications on climate change. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 309, 10–20, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsl.2011.04.016 (2011).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
68.Herbert, T. D., Peterson, L. C., Lawrence, K. T. & Liu, Z. Tropical Ocean Temperatures Over the Past 3.5 Million Years. Science 328, 1530–1534, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1185435 (2010).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
69.Nürnberg, D. & Groeneveld, J. Pleistocene variability of the Subtropical Convergence at East Tasman Plateau: Evidence from planktonic foraminiferal Mg/Ca (ODP Site 1172 A). Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems 7, https://doi.org/10.1029/2005GC000984 (2006).70.Dyez, K. A., Ravelo, A. C. & Mix, A. C. Evaluating drivers of Pleistocene eastern tropical Pacific sea surface temperature. Paleoceanography 31, 2015PA002873, https://doi.org/10.1002/2015PA002873 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
71.Alonso-Garcia, M. et al. Ocean circulation, ice sheet growth and interhemispheric coupling of millennial climate variability during the mid-Pleistocene (ca 800–400ka). Quaternary Science Reviews 30, 3234–3247, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2011.08.005 (2011).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
72.Medina-Elizalde, M. & W Lea, D. The Mid-Pleistocene Transition in the Tropical Pacific. Science 310, 1009–12, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1115933 (2005).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
73.Liu, Z. Pleistocene climate evolution in the eastern Pacific and implications for the orbital theory of climate change. Ph.D., Brown University, United States – Rhode Island (2004).74.Dyez, K. A. & Ravelo, A. C. Late Pleistocene tropical Pacific temperature sensitivity to radiative greenhouse gas forcing. Geological Society of America 41, 23–26, https://doi.org/10.1130/G33425.1 (2013).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
75.Martínez-Garcia, A., Rosell-Melé, A., McClymont, E. L., Gersonde, R. & Haug, G. H. Subpolar Link to the Emergence of the Modern Equatorial Pacific Cold Tongue. Science 328, 1550–1553, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1184480 (2010).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
76.Lawrence, K. T., Herbert, T. D., Brown, C. M., Raymo, M. E. & Haywood, A. M. High-amplitude variations in North Atlantic sea surface temperature during the early Pliocene warm period. Paleoceanography 24, PA2218, https://doi.org/10.1029/2008PA001669 (2009).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
77.Schmidt, M. W., Vautravers, M. J. & Spero, H. J. Western Caribbean sea surface temperatures during the late Quaternary. Geochemistry Geophysics Geosystems 7, https://doi.org/10.1029/2005GC000957 (2006).78.Ho, S. L. et al. Sea surface temperature variability in the Pacific sector of the Southern Ocean over the past 700 kyr. Paleoceanography 27, https://doi.org/10.1029/2012PA002317 (2012).79.Tierney, J. E., deMenocal, P. B. & Zander, P. D. A climatic context for the out-of-Africa migration. The Geological Society of America 45, 1023–1026, https://doi.org/10.1130/G39457.1 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
80.Beck, J. W. et al. A 550,000-year record of East Asian monsoon rainfall from 10Be in loess. Science 360, 877–881, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aam5825 (2018).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
81.Kathayat, G. et al. Indian monsoon variability on millennial-orbital timescales. Scientific Reports 6, 24374, https://doi.org/10.1038/srep24374 (2016).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
82.Guo, Z. T., Berger, A., Yin, Q. Z. & Qin, L. Strong asymmetry of hemispheric climates during MIS-13 inferred from correlating China loess and Antarctica ice records. Clim. Past 5, 21–31, https://doi.org/10.5194/cp-5-21-2009 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
83.Carolin, S. A. et al. Northern Borneo stalagmite records reveal West Pacific hydroclimate across MIS 5 and 6. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 439, 182–193, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsl.2016.01.028 (2016).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
84.Waldmann, N., Torfstein, A. & Stein, M. Northward intrusions of low- and mid-latitude storms across the Saharo-Arabian belt during past interglacials. Geology 38, 567–570, https://doi.org/10.1130/G30654.1 (2010).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
85.Landwehr, J. M., Sharp, W. D., Coplen, T. B., Ludwig, K. R. & Winograd, I. J. The Chronology for the δ18O Record from Devils Hole, Nevada, Extended Into the Mid-Holocene. Tech. Rep., US Geological Survey (2011).86.Stoykova, D. A., Shopov, Y. Y., Garbeva, D., Tsankov, L. T. & Yonge, C. J. Origin of the climatic cycles from orbital to sub-annual scales. Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 70, 293–302, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jastp.2007.08.018 (2008).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
87.Jouzel, J. et al. Orbital and Millennial Antarctic Climate Variability over the Past 800,000 Years. Science 317, 793–796, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1141038 (2007).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
88.Cheng, H. et al. The climatic cyclicity in semiarid-arid central Asia over the past 500,000 years. Geophysical Research Letters 39, https://doi.org/10.1029/2011GL050202 (2012).89.Prokopenko, A. A., Hinnov, L. A., Williams, D. F. & Kuzmin, M. I. Orbital forcing of continental climate during the Pleistocene: a complete astronomically tuned climatic record from Lake Baikal, SE Siberia. Quaternary Science Reviews 25, 3431–3457, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2006.10.002 (2006).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
90.Melles, M. et al. 2.8 Million Years of Arctic Climate Change from Lake El’gygytgyn, NE Russia. Science 337, 315–320, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1222135 (2012).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
91.Vaks, A., Bar-Matthews, M., Matthews, A., Ayalon, A. & Frumkin, A. Middle-Late Quaternary paleoclimate of northern margins of the Saharan-Arabian Desert: reconstruction from speleothems of Negev Desert, Israel. Quaternary Science Reviews 29, 2647–2662, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2010.06.014 (2010).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
92.Bar-Matthews, M., Ayalon, A., Gilmour, M., Matthews, A. & Hawkesworth, C. J. Sea–land oxygen isotopic relationships from planktonic foraminifera and speleothems in the Eastern Mediterranean region and their implication for paleorainfall during interglacial intervals. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 67, 3181–3199, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0016-7037(02)01031-1 (2003).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
93.Cheng, H. et al. The Asian monsoon over the past 640,000 years and ice age terminations. Nature 534, 640–646, https://doi.org/10.1038/nature18591 (2016).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
94.Tzedakis, P. C., Hooghiemstra, H. & Pälike, H. The last 1.35 million years at Tenaghi Philippon: revised chronostratigraphy and long-term vegetation trends. Quaternary Science Reviews 25, 3416–3430, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2006.09.002 (2006).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
95.Vaks, A. et al. Paleoclimate and location of the border between Mediterranean climate region and the Saharo–Arabian Desert as revealed by speleothems from the northern Negev Desert, Israel. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 249, 384–399, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsl.2006.07.009 (2006).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
96.K. Thomas, E. et al. Heterodynes dominate precipitation isotopes in the East Asian monsoon region, reflecting interaction of multiple climate factors. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 455, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsl.2016.09.044 (2016).97.Hao, Q. et al. Delayed build-up of Arctic ice sheets during 400,000-year minima in insolation variability. Nature 490, 393–396, https://doi.org/10.1038/nature11493 (2012).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar  More

1.Costanza, R. et al. Twenty years of ecosystem services: how far have we come and how far do we still need to go?. Ecosyst. Serv. 28, 1–16 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
2.Costanza, R. et al. The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387, 253–260 (1997).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
3.Mace, G. M., Norris, K. & Fitter, A. H. Biodiversity and ecosystem services: a multilayered relationship. Trends Ecol. Evol. 27, 19–26 (2012).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
4.Pimm, S. L. et al. The biodiversity of species and their rates of extinction, distribution, and protection. Science 344, 1246752 (2014).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
5.De Vos, J. M., Joppa, L. N., Gittleman, J. L., Stephens, P. R. & Pimm, S. L. Estimating the normal background rate of species extinction. Conserv. Biol. 29, 452–462 (2015).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
6.Humphreys, A. M., Govaerts, R., Ficinski, S. Z., Nic Lughadha, E. & Vorontsova, M. S. Global dataset shows geography and life form predict modern plant extinction and rediscovery. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 3, 1043–1047 (2019).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
7.Hooper, D. U. et al. Effects of biodiversity on ecosystem functioning: a consensus of current knowledge. Ecol. Monogr. 75, 3–35 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
8.Worm, B. et al. Impacts of biodiversity loss on ocean ecosystem services. Science 314, 787–790 (2006).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
9.Cardinale, B. J. et al. Biodiversity loss and its impact on humanity. Nature 486, 59–67 (2012).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
10.Isbell, F., Tilman, D., Polasky, S. & Loreau, M. The biodiversity-dependent ecosystem service debt. Ecol. Lett. 18, 119–134 (2015).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
11.Oliver, T. H. et al. Declining resilience of ecosystem functions under biodiversity loss. Nat. Commun. 6, 10122 (2015).ADS 
PubMed 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
12.Smale, D. A. et al. Marine heatwaves threaten global biodiversity and the provision of ecosystem services. Nat. Clim. Change 9, 306–312 (2019).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
13.Reilly, J. R. et al. Crop production in the USA is frequently limited by a lack of pollinators. Proc. R. Soc. B. 287, 20200922 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
14.Tscharntke, T., Klein, A. M., Kruess, A., Steffan-Dewenter, I. & Thies, C. Landscape perspectives on agricultural intensification and biodiversity-ecosystem service management. Ecol. Lett. 8, 857–874 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
15.Kaiser‐Bunbury, C. N., Muff, S., Memmott, J., Müller, C. B. & Caflisch, A. The robustness of pollination networks to the loss of species and interactions: a quantitative approach incorporating pollinator behaviour. Ecol. Lett. 13, 442–452 (2010).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
16.Hautier, Y. et al. Eutrophication weakens stabilizing effects of diversity in natural grasslands. Nature 508, 521–525 (2014).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
17.Duncan, C., Thompson, J. R. & Pettorelli, N. The quest for a mechanistic understanding of biodiversity–ecosystem services relationships. Proc. R. Soc. B 282, 20151348 (2015).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
18.Oliver, T. H. et al. Biodiversity and resilience of ecosystem functions. Trends Ecol. Evol. 30, 673–684 (2015).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
19.Dee, L. E. et al. Operationalizing network theory for ecosystem service assessments. Trends Ecol. Evol. 32, 118–130 (2017).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
20.Mastrángelo, M. E. et al. Key knowledge gaps to achieve global sustainability goals. Nat. Sustain. 2, 1115–1121 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
21.Isbell, F. et al. Biodiversity increases the resistance of ecosystem productivity to climate extremes. Nature 526, 574–577 (2015).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
22.Mace, G. M., Hails, R. S., Cryle, P., Harlow, J. & Clarke, S. J. Towards a risk register for natural capital. J. Appl. Ecol. 52, 641–653 (2015).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
23.Donohue, I. et al. Navigating the complexity of ecological stability. Ecol. Lett. 19, 1072–1085 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
24.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 
Article 

Google Scholar 
25.Yachi, S. & Loreau, M. Biodiversity and ecosystem productivity in a fluctuating environment: the insurance hypothesis. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 96, 1463–1468 (1999).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
26.Pillar, V. D. et al. Functional redundancy and stability in plant communities. J. Veg. Sci. 24, 963–974 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
27.Feit, B., Blüthgen, N., Traugott, M. & Jonsson, M. Resilience of ecosystem processes: a new approach shows that functional redundancy of biological control services is reduced by landscape simplification. Ecol. Lett. 22, 1568–1577 (2019).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
28.Salski, A. Ecological applications of fuzzy logic. Pages 3–14 in Ecological Informatics (ed. Recknagel, F.) (Springer, 2003).29.Ehrlich, P. R. & Mooney, H. A. Extinction, substitution, and ecosystem services. Bioscience 33, 248–254 (1983).Article 

Google Scholar 
30.Winfree, R. & Kremen, C. Are ecosystem services stabilized by differences among species? A test using crop pollination. Proc. R. Soc. B 276, 229–237 (2009).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
31.Díaz, S. et al. Incorporating plant functional diversity effects in ecosystem service assessments. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 104, 20684 (2007).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
32.Petchey, O. L. & Gaston, K. J. Extinction and the loss of functional diversity. Proc. R. Soc. B 269, 1721–1727 (2002).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
33.Petchey, O. L., Hector, A. & Gaston, K. J. How do different measures of functional diversity perform? Ecology 85, 847–857 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
34.Maseyk, F. J. F., Demeter, L., Csergő, A. M. & Buckley, Y. M. Effect of management on natural capital stocks underlying ecosystem service provision: a ‘provider group’ approach. Biodivers. Conserv. 26, 3289–3305 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
35.Schröter, M. et al. Assumptions in ecosystem service assessments: increasing transparency for conservation. Ambio 50, 289–300 (2021).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
36.Dee, L. E. et al. When do ecosystem services depend on rare species? Trends Ecol. Evol. 34, 746–758 (2019).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
37.Des Roches, S., Pendleton, L. H., Shapiro, B. & Palkovacs, E. P. Conserving intraspecific variation for nature’s contributions to people. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 5, 574–582 (2021).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
38.Lafuite, A.-S., de Mazancourt, C. & Loreau, M. Delayed behavioural shifts undermine the sustainability of social–ecological systems. Proc. R. Soc. B 284, 20171192 (2017).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
39.Costanza, R. et al. Changes in the global value of ecosystem services. Glob. Environ. Change 26, 152–158 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
40.Wyborn, C. et al. Imagining transformative biodiversity futures. Nat. Sustain. 3, 670–672 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
41.Bodin, Ö. et al. Improving network approaches to the study of complex social–ecological interdependencies. Nat. Sustain. 2, 551–559 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
42.Palumbi, S. R. et al. Managing for ocean biodiversity to sustain marine ecosystem services. Front. Ecol. Environ. 7, 204–211 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
43.Fanin, N. et al. Consistent effects of biodiversity loss on multifunctionality across contrasting ecosystems. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2, 269–278 (2018).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
44.White, L., O’Connor, N. E., Yang, Q., Emmerson, M. C. & Donohue, I. Individual species provide multifaceted contributions to the stability of ecosystems. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 4, 1594–1601 (2020).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
45.Mace, G. M. et al. Quantification of extinction risk: IUCN’s system for classifying threatened species. Conserv. Biol. 22, 1424–1442 (2008).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
46.Moreno-Mateos, D. et al. The long-term restoration of ecosystem complexity. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 4, 676–685 (2020).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
47.Winfree, R. et al. Species turnover promotes the importance of bee diversity for crop pollination at regional scales. Science 359, 791–793 (2018).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
48.Memmott, J., Waser, N. M. & Price, M. V. Tolerance of pollination networks to species extinctions. Proc. R. Soc. B 271, 2605–2611 (2004).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
49.Purvis, A., Agapow, P. M., Gittleman, J. L. & Mace, G. M. Nonrandom extinction and the loss of evolutionary history. Science 288, 328–330 (2000).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
50.Gross, K. & Cardinale, B. J. The functional consequences of random vs. ordered species extinctions. Ecol. Lett. 8, 409–418 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
51.Estes, J. A. et al. Trophic downgrading of planet Earth. Science 333, 301–306 (2011).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
52.Ross, S. R. P.-J. et al. Code from: Universal scaling of robustness of ecosystem services to species loss (Version V0.4.2-beta). zenodo https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4749405 (2021). More

Spatial databaseWe collected species occurrences from the most accurate and available source of data for each taxonomic group. For mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians, we used the IUCN spatial database to assign realm identity for each species15. By doing this, we assigned a realm for 5489 mammal species, 10,787 bird species, 5489 reptile species and 5833 amphibian species. Since IUCN spatial database does not cover all species, we completed our database with two additional sources of species occurrences: (1) the WWF WildFinder species database23, except for mammals where we used the latest version of the species distribution provided by ref. 24. If (1) was not available, we used (2) the global biodiversity information facility (GBIF). Using WWF WildFinder, we assigned a realm for 1634 bird species, 7378 reptile species and 2006 amphibian species. 437 mammal species were assigned using ref. 24. From GBIF, we downloaded all the records belonging to the four classes of animals (Mammals50, Aves51, Reptiles52 and Amphibians53). Before using the spatial data, we cleaned the dataset following a cleaning procedure that was similar to but more conservative than other currently available methods (e.g. CoordinatesCleaner, BDCleaner54). First, records were screened, and only those with (1) coordinates; (2) a taxonomic rank of “species” were kept. From this list, we filtered out the records with clearly false locality coordinates (e.g. latitude equal to longitude, both latitude and longitude equal to 0, and longitude/latitude outside the possible range (i.e. −180; 180 for longitude and −90; 90 for latitude)). Those are the most common errors encountered with GBIF occurrence data55. In addition, we removed the records from living specimens (i.e. from zoos, botanical gardens), conserved specimens (i.e. museums), and unknown sources. We also excluded the species with less than 50 records within each realm as a low number of records can be due to misidentifications, which might have strong effects on our analyses. We finally refined the dataset by overlaying the occurrences within the six biogeographic realms (see below) and dropping the species that fall outside of the polygons. This spatial overlay process was conducted using the ‘sp’ library56 in R. The number of species for which realm was assigned using GBIF was 1 ( More