Philippa Kaur

The Ner River has been for decades the major route of disposing sewage and storm water from the Łódź City, a million people municipality located on the upper course of the river24. The improvement in water quality, and resulting fish recovery in the Ner, which are described in this study, was a consequence of two major processes that began in the early 1990s. Both these processes were management measures undertaken as part of the preparation for Poland’s accession to the European Community (now European Union), which took place in 2004. One of the processes was the liquidation of textile industry in the Łódź City, once one of the greatest textile production centers in the world24. The other of the processes was the modernization of agriculture and construction of numerous sewage purification stations in the Ner catchment, which took place over the 1990s and 2000s. The most important of the stations was the huge Łódź City Sewage Treatment Plant (STP), whose first part was launched in 1994. By 1995 all sewage disposed to the Ner (which was 3–4 m3/s) had been mechanically treated, by 1998 half of it had also been biologically treated, and since 2001 all of it has been biologically treated24, although the STP was further modernized in the whole 2000s. As a result of the above processes, oxygen content or transparency of the Ner River water much increased, while the load of nutrients or heavy metals much decreased in the study period.There were three things that were essential for obtaining the significant fish analysis results that are presented above. One of them was frequent fish monitoring, which consisted of seven surveys. If the number of surveys over the period of 2000–2012 had been lower, say two or three, the intimate relation between Prussian carp and ide, for example, would not have been noticed, because no useful regression model could either be constructed or be significant. Such frequent monitoring as ours was exceptional in the early 2000s in Poland, and this is probably why the relation between the two fish species had not been detected before our study.The frequent sampling was also little biased. Electrofishing, which was used in the surveys, might be reliably applied owing to several factors. Firstly, the recovered course was of slow water current, which resulted from a 17 m difference in elevation (and thus a 0.43‰ slope) between the upstream and downstream ends of the course. Such slow current made drifting of stunned fish too fast to be captured impossible. Secondly, turbidity which obstructs discernment of stunned fish, was low. Thirdly, conductivity was very stable, only once slightly exceeding 1000 μS/cm, and being 700–960 μS/cm on other sampling occasions (Table 1); such range of conductivity does not create technical or assessment problems of sampling efficiency or sampling selectivity36.Finally, fish biomass data were standardized in a way that enabled constructing significant regression models. This occurred owing to the Hellinger transformation of data. Transformation of the data was necessary because of high variation in raw fish biomass between some of the sampling occasions.Prussian carp invasion, reversal of the invasion, recovery of the native fish species, and their drivers in the NerResults of the above analysis, in particular that of the RDA, indicate that the trait that enabled Prussian carp invasion of the recovered course in the phase of the initial environmental stress decrease was most probably the species’ ability to exist in worse oxygen conditions than other species. This is congruent with Prussian carp’s capacity for anaerobic metabolism, which is absent or weaker in other fish species15,37. Owing to this metabolism, Prussian carp can survive weeks of hypoxia, and even several hours of anoxia. Perhaps, other traits additionally enabling the invasion were Prussian carp’s tolerance of high phosphorus and nitrogen levels16, which were also noticed in the Ner in the late 1990s and early 2000s, and phenotypical plasticity of reproduction12,38.The RDA results also indicate that additional factors favouring Prussian carp might have been high calcium and total phosphorus contents. In contrast, weatherfish were able to thrive and avoid competition with Prussian carp in the recovered course till 2000 owing to their ability to breath atmospheric air, detritus-oriented feeding tactics, and preference for vegetated zones of extremely shallow water depths39,40.Yet, when the next phase of environmental stress decrease (over the course of the fish sampling period) made the recovered course of the Ner good enough to become colonisable by other fish species, the situation of Prussian carp changed dramatically. As the amount of dissolved oxygen further considerably increased in that period, the ability of anaerobic metabolism was no longer an asset, while the new colonizers became its competitors. Of these competitors ide may have been the most important species for Prussian carp decline (the causes of which are explained in the next subchapter). This is indicated by results of regression analysis presented in Tables 6 and 7 and Fig. 6 (see “Results”).An open question is whether slower decrease in environmental stress than that presently observed in the recovered course would enable Prussian carp to develop defence mechanisms that would reduce their replacement by ide. This might be possible owing to Prussian carp’s phenotypical plasticity. This plasticity might produce modifications of the niche occupied by Prussian carp, and in this way lessened the interference competition between the two species. Unfortunately, there is no MA (or any other) model II regression that may be used with multiple predictors (and hence no such multispecies models are presented here), by analogy to multiple regression31. Multispecies model II regression might be useful because a probable long term interaction of Prussian carp with roach, for example, was observed by Paulovits et al.41, although it occurred in a shallow reservoir instead of a river.Why was ide the replacer of Prussian carp rather than other fishes?The explanation why ide acted as the replacer of Prussian carp is difficult, but at least to some extent possible. Schiemer and Wieser42 defined food and feeding, ecomorphology, and energy assimilation and conversion as four groups of traits that decide about the success of given cyprinids, and used the traits to substantiate increasing roach dominance in Central European rivers. Although much less is known about these groups as regards ide (but see Rothla et al.43), yet ecomorphology seems to be most important also in its case. Large body depth of ide makes it similar to Prussian carp and thus its tough competitor. As the shape of ide is much less streamlined than that of most other large-bodied obligatorily riverine cyprinids, ide, like Prussian carp, avoids water current zone44 in order to reduce energy loss resulting from water resistance during movement. This increases the risk of occupying similar ecological niches by these two species. However, ide grow to bigger body sizes than Prussian carp, which gives the former a big advantage over the latter while searching for food (interference competition) and while avoiding predation.Moreover, while Prussian carp is one of the most resistant fish species in general, ide belongs to the most resistant obligatory riverine (i.e. fluvial specialist) cyprinids, although its occurrence may sometimes even resemble that of limnophilic fishes45,46. The capacity of ide to be successful in more than averagely polluted river courses is manifest in the Warta, the parent river of the Ner. Przybylski47 and Kruk46, who distinguished contrasting reaches in the Warta, noticed a significantly higher biomass of ide in the middle, most polluted reach (to which the Ner empties), as early as in 1986–87 and 1996–1998, respectively. Ide usually dominated poor, several-species rich assemblages there. The situation was much similar in the Warta much later, in 2011–2012, when ide was significantly associated with the middle course, in which fish assemblages were in the poorest condition as compared to the upper and lower courses48.Kruk46 attributes the high abundance of ide in the most polluted middle Warta River to weak competition from other rheophils, which were absent there because river degradation was too severe for them. In contrast, in the other sections of the Warta, ide were much less abundant owing to improved water quality and thus higher abundance of other rheophils, competitors of ide. If this presumption is correct, i.e. if the consequences of a spatial degradation gradient may become reflected in a temporal degradation gradient, then further decrease in environmental stress in forthcoming years may result in the replacement of ide by other rheophilic species in the Ner, too. This prognosis is supported by Eklöv et al.’s45 observation of ide decline coinciding with trout increase after a long-term improvement in water quality in streams of southern Sweden.All fish species that colonized the recovered course of the Ner were species recorded for several dozen years in the Warta catchment46,49,50,51,52,53,54, and the fish species list of the catchment is about 20–40% longer than the list of species determined in the Ner. The list of the Warta is also similar to those of other nearby catchments of central Poland55,56. This indicates that all species that colonized the Ner in recent decades may have originated from the regional species pool57,58 rather than from stocking, aquaculture or unintentional introductions. Nevertheless, ide are frequently used in stocking, which increases their chance to become an instrument of controlling non-native fish species, while the present study contributes to the purposefull exploitation of the fish species. A quite different perspective of an invasion was presented by Bøhn et al.59. While monitoring the invasion of vendace (Coregonus albula L.) into upstream and downstream lakes 50 km apart located on the Norwegian sub-arctic Pasvik watercourse they observed great life history variability of the non-native fish entering a new environment. This consisted in decrease in the mean length in all age-classes, in fecundity, in the mean weight and size of individuals at first maturation, and increase in growth rate. Unfortunately, in the Ner we could only check the mean weight of individuals (results not shown): it varied in both Prussian carp and ide, but no clear decreasing or increasing trends were observed over the study period.Ide as the suppressor of Prussian carp, and other methods of extirpating the latter speciesIf the presumption that ide contributes as a biotic extirpator to Prussian carp decline is true then a comparison of ide with other suppression drivers is worth considering. One thing that may limit ide importance in other environments, for example, may be the above mentioned Prussian carp’s phenotypical plasticity: consequently, further research in this respect is necessary. Although the herpesviral hematopoietic necrosis virus (Cyprinid herpesvirus 2, CyHV-2) operates much faster than ide it cannot practically be used because it is uncontrollable in natural environments. This is the case because the virus, which is believed to have global occurrence, causes epizootics only when triggered by a specific range of water temperatures60, which of course can hardly be manipulated.Besides, the virus suffers from the problem of selectivity. In the Czech Republic, the virus caused an epizootic that killed probably most individuals of numerous Prussian carp populations within weeks, but the fish were all triploid females18. It is not known why other ploidy forms38 were not affected, which is important because there is a natural tendency of invasive triploid female populations (with a few percent of males) to quickly transform themselves into diploid bisexual populations12. Moreover, first information about the virus indicated mass mortality of cultured goldfish [Carassius auratus (auratus)] in many countries, and it is not certain that it will not affect other fish species in the future20. Finally, the virus-assisted extirpation would be a very drastic form of animal control.Reduction in frequency of desiccation events is an environmental measure of Prussian carp suppression that was discovered in Hungary21. It was observed there that in reservoirs, lakes and canals in which few or no desiccation events occurred, the relative abundance of Prussian carp constituted between one fifth and half of that recorded in fish ponds, for example, where desiccation was frequent. Moreover, the method is probably selective, affecting no other, native species. However, it cannot be applied to all freshwater bodies, for technical or financial reasons, and the elimination of Prussian carp is far from total. Interestingly, desiccation, and its relation to small water body sizes, was determined as one of factors favouring Prussian carp occurrence by Górski et al.61 in the Volga floodplain areas, where large water body size was also assessed as a factor favouring ide occurrence.Theoretical perspectiveGenerally, both the invasion by Prussian carp and its reversal comply with major theoretical predictions: the invasion with community ecology as a framework for biological invasions62,63 and the reversal with both the framework and the concept of biotic (ecological) resistance27,28,64,65. In the case of the invasion, because mostly the amount of resource (in this case: increase in dissolved oxygen, accompanied by decrease in BOD5, decrease in total phosphorus, etc.; in short—water quality) increased to a level that allowed the invader to exploit the environment, but was too low for other, native fishes, and thus Prussian carp (and weatherfish) colonized the river instead of the others. This also agrees with scenario 2 of the theoretical framework for invasions defined by Facon et al.66, in which environmental change is the main factor of invasion.In the case of the reversal of the invasion, compliance with the theories occurs because the resource (mainly water quality) increased/improved high enough to be exploited by other, native species, and also because the native species became then competitors of the invader and thus biotic resistance drivers23,28. These drivers are defined in the biotic resistance hypothesis64, which describes the chances of an invasive species to be successful in a new environment. According to the hypothesis native-species-diverse environments are more resistant to invasive species than native-species-poor environments through a combination of predation, competition, parasitism, disease, and aggression. In this context, ide may resist Prussian carp, for example, owing to occupying similar spawning grounds as both species are open substratum spawners [ide being a phyto-lithophil (A.1.4), and Prussian carp a phytophil (A.1.5)]67. In the case of these two species, the resistance may be extended to ide predation on Prussian carp’ eggs, larvae or juveniles. Besides, ide grows to bigger body sizes than Prussian carp, which may result in aggressive behaviour in the form of scaring Prussian carp away from feeding grounds or hiding places.In contrast, both the invasion and its reversal do not support the concept of invasional meltdown68, according to which in the initial phase an invasive species causes rapid changes in an ecosystem (by altering the trophic chain, for example), in this way paving the way for the invasion of subsequent non-native species66. In a next phase, when two or more alien species have invaded the ecosystem, synergistic interactions among them accelerate the invasion process68.Yet, it is possible that the occurrence of biotic resistance rather than invasional meltdown has been an effect of insufficient biomass or abundance of other invasive species in the regional species pool57,58, of other aspects of the biotic context or small spatial and/or temporal scales of the processes26, or of environmental filters that might have prevented the invasion of other non-native species in the Ner69. Consequently, a number of quite different possible scenarios for the Ner are imaginable, for example no reversal of Prussian carp invasion if ide had not been abundant in the parent Warta River, or if species composition there had been quite different in other respects. This problem requires further research to reach reliable conclusions. More

The compilation, editing and review of WCVP spanned the digital revolution. Therefore, the format in which the data were stored and distributed, the format in which data were obtained and accessed changed radically over time. However, the key elements and core workflows stayed largely the same. Here we present an overview of these workflows and then provide more detail on each workflow in turn, before describing the approaches to standardization, taxon acceptance, alternative taxonomies and international collaboration adopted during the preparation of what became the WCVP dataset.Overview of workflowsFour main workflows operated in parallel:

(i)

The A-Z workflow in which each name was mapped to a taxon concept, if possible, and the correct name for each accepted taxon concept identified, the others being recorded as synonyms of an accepted name or unplaced (when not mapped).

(ii)

The family review workflow whereby, once a family checklist was complete in draft, the checklist or portions thereof were sent for expert review by taxonomists with relevant expertise, whether at Kew or around the world. Once feedback from expert review had been considered, and incorporated where appropriate, family treatments were published on the WCSP website.

(iii)

The geographic workflow focuses primarily on recording the global distribution of each accepted taxon in terms of its presence in the botanical countries of the world3.

(iv)

The update workflow is a continuous process of updating the dataset and incorporating new information gleaned from new publications, directly or via IPNI, as well as from user feedback and expert review focused on particular subsets of the data (e.g. genera).

The parallel operation of these four workflows over decades resulted in data being checked and rechecked multiple times. For example, the widespread grass Poa annua has 264 country codes added and 67 references listed, indicating that the record was checked at least 67 times. All workflows use as a starting point standardised nomenclatural data from IPNI or by screening the literature during the workflows and adding standardised names missing from IPNI as they are encountered. This process is described under the A-Z workflow and in the Standards Used section. All workflows involve taxonomic decision-making processes described in the Taxon Acceptance section.The A-Z workflow in detailThe A-Z workflow started in 1988 and was completed on 4 December 2019. Name data from Index Kewensis (IK), which in 2000 was incorporated into IPNI, was initially retyped into a Firefox database and digitally copied from 1995. These raw data contained different formats reflecting non-standard formatting throughout IK’s history and lacked many dates of publication. The data were therefore first standardised using the standards described below before they were imported. In the early years, the coverage of the name data was still incomplete as names were added from IK in five batches between 1995 and 2008, each batch being standardised before being added to WCVP. Compilation began with the genus Aa Rchb.f. and continued alphabetically through all the genera. The relevant literature on the genus was then consulted at Botanic Garden Meise and Kew to ascertain the taxonomic status of each name (see below) and to add any distribution data encountered, as well as some 190,000 names missing from IK/IPNI. The latter step was particularly important for infraspecific names, as these were not systematically recorded in IK before 1971. During the compilation process, names missing from WCVP are added when encountered and therefore the infraspecific names should be largely complete for those in current use. In parallel, infraspecific names from other databases have been imported and some historic literature important to particular families has been screened for all names. During this process duplicates were removed and names were also checked to make sure they complied with the ICN5. Despite the above, many validly published infraspecific names are still missing from WCVP, especially historic names.Each name was assigned one of three basic taxonomic statuses: Accepted, Synonym or Unplaced.If a name was accepted in a publication as a distinct species with a published species concept, then the name was given the status ‘Accepted’ and geographic distribution data were added from that source. The database differentiates two different kinds of accepted name, the most frequently assigned accepted name status is given to native plants that occur in the wild while the “Artificial Hybrid” status is assigned to names that are correct and can be used for cultivated or naturalised taxa that are either man-made and do not occur in the wild (not wild plants) or those that may have a combination of natural and human-influenced components such spontaneous hybrids occurring in gardens or between native and introduced taxa.If a name was listed as a synonym in a publication or in the original volume of IK, the status given would be “Synonym” and the name would be linked to the published accepted name. Several different types of synonyms are recorded, depending on their nomenclatural status as defined by the ICN: legitimate synonyms, illegitimate synonyms, not validly published synonyms, orthographic variants and misapplied.If a name was not encountered in any of the literature consulted it was assigned “Unplaced” status. This status is also used for names that would be accepted but for the fact that they are illegitimate or not validly published under the ICN and therefore cannot be used for taxa that should be accepted but do not have a correct name in an accepted genus. The most common occurrence of this last case are names published in genera that are not accepted in WCVP, but for which a validly published combination in an accepted genus does not exist. Distribution is also added for unplaced names as they may relate to distinct species concepts and may become accepted under a legitimate, validly published name in future or can be used as an aid to resolve them at regional level.The Family Review workflow in detailThe Family review workflow started in 1994 when RG was first employed by RBG, Kew. The idea is simple, a basic checklist is completed for a particular family. Relevant parts are then sent for review by taxonomic experts based in many different institutes worldwide. Recommended changes are then incorporated, and the checklist is published as a book and/or online on WCSP.The families selected as World Checklist foci in the first instance were chosen because Kew had a particular research interest in that family, and expertise acquired over decades of research could be captured before key senior scientists retired (e.g. World Checklist of Euphorbiaceae13). Publication of a global treatment of a family at genus level also prompted and facilitated some family checklists. For example, the availability of a genus level classification of palms14 facilitated compilation of the palm checklist originally published as part of WCSP and as a book15, which in turn formed the basis for the online resource, Palmweb (www.palmweb.org). Similarly, a genus level treatment of Sapotaceae16 facilitated production of the World Checklist of Sapotaceae17 which is incorporated into the online Sapotaceae Resource Centre (https://padme.rbge.org.uk/Sapotaceae/data)).As part of the review workflow, the full synonymy of each taxon concept is carefully checked to make sure the oldest available correct name is accepted for the concept. Sometimes a widely used name was accepted, even though an apparent earlier synonym was found. There are currently some 300 such synonyms indicated as possible earlier names pending further research. If these are confirmed as earlier names following further research it may be appropriate to consider formal rejection of these 300 names, in the interests of nomenclatural stability.Approaches to family review varied because each plant family tends to have a particular expert community (or sometimes more than one) who collaborate best in different ways. For some families, experts were sent checklists of genera they requested to review, while for other families, such as Myrtaceae18, a workshop was held where all available experts were invited to put together a review strategy. For large families, such as Rubiaceae, experts agreeing to review the whole checklist worked through stacks of printout more than 60 cm high. All these diverse review approaches worked well and much improved the basic checklist. Once the review was completed, the family was added to the WCSP website and thereafter updated via the update workflow below.The Geographic workflow in detailThe geographic workflow started in 1995, when data were first imported electronically into the WCVP database from the IK database at RBG, Kew. Data entry via this workflow is continuing and is expected to be completed by mid 2021.This workflow primarily focuses on adding the geographic data from published Floras and regional checklists. Such publications differ in geographic scope from individual protected areas to continental works published over decades. Over the years, the geographic workflow checked first Europe, then Africa, Southern America, Northern America, Asia, Subantarctic, Pacific and is currently finishing the floras of India and Australasia for the families in review. Geographic distribution information was captured using the standard codes at the level of Botanical Country (level 3) of the World Geographical Scheme for Recording Plant Distributions6 (hereafter WGSRPD).In addition to the geographic distribution information that was added for accepted taxa, synonymy and missing infraspecific names were also added from those publications in order to speed up the A-Z workflow. Lifeform19, and climate zones data (see Standards Used below) for accepted species are also added at this stage, although this data is currently published only for families included in WCSP due to the constraints of current data platforms. When the geographical codes added to a record were deemed to be complete or nearly so, the geography was also added in words, which could be very specific for local endemics or very general for widespread species. The wording of the text would, as far as possible, use the same wording as used in the WGSRPD or a combination thereof. So, a species occurring in BZE (Northeast Brazil) and BZL (Southeast Brazil) would be reported to occur in E. Brazil (Eastern Brazil).The Update workflow in detailThe update workflow started in 1988, at the same time as the A-Z workflow and will continue as long as WCVP is maintained. The update workflow comprises three parts, weekly updates to the WCVP data available online, incorporation of user feedback and annual import of names added to IPNI in the previous year.Every day new scientific insights are published and once a week all new journals and books that arrive in RG’s institute are screened and new data incorporated into WCVP. This was first done in the Belgian Botanic Garden library and from 1994 in the library of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. There is also a proliferation of new online journals and eBooks, many of which come to our attention only if authors notify us of their publications. Automation of this literature review process has not been attempted to date due to: (i) the challenges inherent in detecting new synonymy or genuine nomenclatural corrections, as opposed to newly published names which are clearly indicated in compliance with the ICN; (ii) the need for a single process to ensure systematic coverage of the scientific literature; (iii) resource limitations.The second source of updates comes from the daily stream of emails from users. Some 2,000 emails are received annually, and much improve the data. We aim to address all feedback within two weeks, although some queries requiring further discussion and library consultation may take longer and often involve discussions with the person sending the feedback. We also get requests to review particular genera from experts to whom we send data for review and then amend the database accordingly.The third source of updates is names data downloaded from IPNI. Early in each calendar year, the scientific names added to IPNI in the previous year are imported manually to WCVP. They are then edited by adding taxonomic status and geography to each record in line with other workflows. In parallel, work is currently ongoing to reconcile all the names stored in the IPNI database with those stored in WCVP so eventually both datasets can share the same permanent IPNI identifiers.Updates from the above sources become available to WCVP and POWO users on a weekly basis when the names data accessible from the WCVP web portal are updated. The full data download files are refreshed less frequently (currently every few months) because this requires a manual process, pending development of new infrastructure, including an Application Programming Interface.Standards usedFrom the outset of compilation work internationally agreed standards have been used to standardise the data. Originally, the database followed the fields proposed by the International Transfer Format for Botanic Garden Records20. This has proven to be important when migrating data to new IT systems and exchanging data with partners. Some of the fields have, over time, become more atomised but the information distributed across them is largely unchanged.For nomenclatural terms and abbreviations and of course for nomenclatural practice in general, we follow the ICN5Most of the other standards used to standardize data in the published WCVP dataset are recognised by Biodiversity Information Standards (www.tdwg.org):

For the authors of plant names, we use Authors of Plant Names21 now maintained by IPNI. This standard is widely used and obligatory in many scientific journals.

For journals, the second edition of Botanico-Periodicum-Huntianum (BPH-2) is used22.

For books published until 1945, the second edition of Taxonomic Literature (TL-2)23 is used.

For publications not in TL-2 and for books published after 1945, we follow the standard forms from the IPNI Publication Database which is continuously maintained.

For the additional data in WCVP, not included in the published dataset, the following standards are applied:

For the geographical data we use World Geographical Scheme for Recording Plant Distributions3 with some minor changes for countries that have recently changed name, e.g. Swaziland for which we now use Eswatini.

For the life form data, we follow the system originally proposed by Raunkiær19

Climate zones: Alpine & Arctic, Temperate, Subtropical, Desert, Seasonally Dry Tropical and Wet Tropical used as consistent terminology to summarize the published habitat information from the resources used to construct each species concept.

Taxon acceptance and species conceptsThe basic rule of species acceptance in WCVP is very simple; we follow the latest published species concept unless experts advise us otherwise. Of course, anyone familiar with plant taxonomy will immediately realise that taxon acceptance is rarely that straightforward. It is however very important to make a distinction between acceptance in the different taxonomic ranks represented in WCVP (Family, Genus, Species, Infraspecifics). WCVP is primarily a list of species concepts. Taxa at other ranks are not the primary focus, not least because there will always be alternative classifications for stable species concepts. However, since full synonymy is provided, users can easily find the correct name if they prefer to use different generic or infraspecific concepts.Although there is a pervasive impression that taxonomy is ever-changing and that alternative taxonomies are commonplace, this not our overall experience24. This perception may have some truth at generic level but from our experience there are very few current alternative species concepts supported by multiple scientists. Even at generic level alternative taxonomies are perhaps less problematic than is generally perceived, as shown for example by Vorontsova & Simon who suggest that up to 90% of names will remain unchanged when implementing a monophyletic classification for grasses25. Overall, there is striking consensus at species level, especially as for some groups there are very few if any active taxonomists. Internet searches may sometimes give the impression that multiple species concepts are accepted at the same time, but of course this is merely because older data are neither removed nor updated. It is therefore very important when using online resources to check the date on which a species concept was last updated or which published taxonomy is followed, because even a suppressed name such as Solanum ferox L. can still be found as seemingly accepted online.Species acceptance in WCVP should be seen as a process rather than a one-off decision to which we adhere no matter what. As explained above under workflows, different publications are used to add the geography and create the species concept and they may not be screened in chronological order. In principle, during compilation we follow the latest published taxonomy and prioritise global accounts over local ones. These two principles are generally sufficient to provide species concepts for the vast majority of names. For the minority of cases, for which no recent taxonomic treatment exists and different current Floras adopt apparently different species concepts, then the situation is examined more closely: we try to find published peer-reviewed papers that include a phylogenetic treatment of the taxon, even if the paper lacks a formal taxonomic component, or we contact experts in the group to request resolution. Where uncertainty remains, then we generally default to retaining the existing taxon concepts rather than merging them without sufficient scientific evidence. All the initial species concepts adopted during collation then undergo the expert review process which will confirm or refine them.For flowering plant families we follow APG IV1 and for conifers and ferns we follow Plants of the World2 including some recently published minor changes and additions26, for example. For genera we primarily follow global classifications where published (e.g. Legumes of the World27 and updates for the genera of Fabaceae, then partial generic classifications if such exist and Plants of the World2 for genera of which no recent published classification exists.) The generic classifications are also fine-tuned during the review process which is led by specialists in the relevant groups who may have more current, sometimes unpublished data to hand. Infraspecific taxa are accepted in a similar way as species concepts, they do however have the additional complication that for a large part of botanical history, most cultivars were given scientific names. As WCVP only records naturally evolved taxa, names applying to these mutations or human selections are synonymised under the species to which these mutations or cultivars belong. The epithets may be available under the International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants28, and appropriate cultivar names should be used as set out under that code.Alternative taxonomiesBotanists, in particular, ask the question if WCVP shows alternative taxonomies. Although this is perceived as being a major issue, we have never found this an issue in the review process or in general use. First, we should emphasize that WCVP is primarily a list of published species concepts and that currently most disagreements are about genera (See also Taxon Acceptance and Species Concepts above). WCVP lists all synonyms and therefore users are, of course, free to use a name in a different genus for the WCVP species concept. For genera we normally follow a published account that involved most of the experts of that group. For example, WCVP follows Genera Orchidacearum29 and subsequent volumes for the generic concepts in the family Orchidaceae with minor changes being made subsequently through discussions and feedback from the authors. The main advantage of following a particular account is that the generic circumscriptions are consistent and based on shared scientific evidence.WCVP reflects alternative taxonomies in the references cited for each record, which are available through the links on the WCVP website to POWO. It became possible from 2003 onwards to add references for each name and each geographical record. Currently a total of 9,145 publications have been used and cited. When taxonomic changes are made to WCVP, a reference is added so users can see the publications or communications on which this change was based. It is important to make clear that (i) such references are only added to names or synonyms explicitly cited in the publication added and (ii) that the protologue (the work in which the name was originally published) is also a reference and this is included for each name. As a result, for some taxonomic decisions, the reference to the taxonomic work which provides the evidence for the decision may not appear in the record of each name affected by that decision, but only in a linked name record.Although, over time, many species concepts have changed, in the here and now there are few competing species concepts where there is genuine disagreement with scientific evidence. While it may still be desirable to show current alternative taxonomies, we consider citing references to the competing view as the most objective and practical way to do this.International collaborationAs noted above, WCVP relies on collaborators around the world. 155 reviewers from 22 countries have been directly involved in expert review of the data for completed families and many others are currently reviewing data. WCVP also has a close relationship with several monographic resources in addition to the family level checklists mentioned above, including Grassbase (www.kew.org/data/grasses-db/index.htm), The Zingiberaceae Resource Centre (https://padme.rbge.org.uk/ZRC/), Cate Araceae (http://cate-araceae.myspecies.info/) and Palmweb (www.palmweb.org), and the Leguminosae30. WCVP also collaborates with floristic initiatives such as the Catálogo de plantas e fungos do Brasil8, Euro + Med Plantbase (http://ww2.bgbm.org/EuroPlusMed/), and World Flora Online13. Collaboration with horticultural data providers is strong too, including the International Daffodil Register (https://apps.rhs.org.uk/horticulturaldatabase/daffodilregister/daffsearch.asp) and the Classified List and International Orchid Register (https://apps.rhs.org.uk/horticulturaldatabase/orchidregister/orchidregister.asp).WCVP has contributed data to the Catalogue of Life (CoL) and now provides 35% of vascular plant CoL content31. With increasing collaboration between CoL and GBIF in the CoL+ project6 and support of the World Flora on-line community7, CoL+ is likely to become the central hub for access to community-supported consensus taxonomic species lists covering all life. WCVP will provide its data through these initiatives, and will both work with TENs and provide taxon concept data for taxa not covered by any TEN. WCVP is already a baseline resource for TENs for certain plant groups (e.g. palms, legumes) and a source of update information for other TENs. In the case of the palm family, the WFO TEN has been closely involved since the compilation phase of WCVP and WCVP contributes the palm taxonomic data to WFO. The legume community is actively editing and commenting on current WCVP content. For other families e.g. Zingiberaceae, the TEN and WCVP run in parallel and data is frequently exchanged between the TEN and the WCVP editor. Thus the nature of the relationships vary, and in many cases they are still evolving, but clearly have the potential to be mutually beneficial and synergistic, with feedback from TENs helping to update WCVP records. WCVP downloads and website can assist any TEN in the task of routine curation and monitoring the addition of new names. WCVP welcomes collaboration with any TEN. It is envisaged that, eventually, TENs will cover all vascular plant groups and consensus content will flow from TENs through WFO to GBIF and CoL+. However, at the moment only 25% of vascular plant species are covered by the 29 TENs. Hence, the WCVP is a vital resource for updating and supporting the developing TENs network to achieve their vision.Principles for creating a single authoritative list of the world’s speciesA recent paper presented ten principles that can underpin a governance framework for species lists32. Although the origins of WCVP predate this publication by decades, these principles have also underpinned the creation and governance of WCVP. We present a summary in Table 2.Table 2 Ten principles which could underpin a governance framework for global species lists (Garnett et al.)32 and the ways in which WCVP already embodies them.Full size table More

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

Google Scholar 
2.Stein LY, Klotz MG. The nitrogen cycle. Curr Biol. 2016;26:R94–R98.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
3.Erguder TH, Boon N, Wittebolle L, Marzorati M, Verstraete W. Environmental factors shaping the ecological niches of ammonia-oxidizing archaea. FEMS Microbiol Rev. 2009;33:855–69.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
4.Nicol GW, Leininger S, Schleper C, Prosser JI. The influence of soil pH on the diversity, abundance and transcriptional activity of ammonia oxidizing archaea and bacteria. Environ Microbiol. 2008;10:2966–78.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
5.Lehtovirta-Morley LE, Ge C, Ross J, Yao H, Nicol GW, Prosser JI. Characterisation of terrestrial acidophilic archaeal ammonia oxidisers and their inhibition and stimulation by organic compounds. FEMS Microbiol Ecol. 2014;89:542–52.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
6.Lehtovirta-Morley LE, Stoecker K, Vilcinskas A, Prosser JI, Nicol GW. Cultivation of an obligate acidophilic ammonia oxidizer from a nitrifying acid soil. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2011;108:15892–7.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
7.Hayatsu M, Tago K, Uchiyama I, Toyoda A, Wang Y, Shimomura Y, et al. An acid-tolerant ammonia-oxidizing γ-proteobacterium from soil. ISME J. 2017;11:1130–41.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
8.Prosser JI, Nicol GW. Archaeal and bacterial ammonia-oxidisers in soil: the quest for niche specialisation and differentiation. Trends Microbiol. 2012;20:523–31.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
9.Gubry-Rangin C, Hai B, Quince C, Engel M, Thomson BC, James P, et al. Niche specialization of terrestrial archaeal ammonia oxidizers. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2011;108:21206–11.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
10.Aigle A, Prosser JI, Gubry-Rangin C. The application of high-throughput sequencing technology to analysis of amoA phylogeny and environmental niche specialisation of terrestrial bacterial ammonia-oxidisers. Environ Microbiome. 2019;14:3.PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
11.Antony CP, Kumaresan D, Hunger S, Drake HL, Murrell JC, Shouche YS. Microbiology of Lonar Lake and other soda lakes. ISME J. 2013;7:468–76.PubMed 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
12.Montanarella L, Chude V, Yagi K, Krasilnikov P, Panah SKA, Mendonca-Santos MDL, et al. Status of the World’s Soil Resources (SWSR) – Main Report. 2015.13.Vera-Gargallo B, Chowdhury TR, Brown J, Fansler SJ, Durán-Viseras A, Sánchez-Porro C, et al. Spatial distribution of prokaryotic communities in hypersaline soils. Sci Rep. 2019;9:1769.PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
14.Hollister EB, Engledow AS, Hammett AJM, Provin TL, Wilkinson HH, Gentry TJ. Shifts in microbial community structure along an ecological gradient of hypersaline soils and sediments. ISME J. 2010;4:829–938.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
15.Metternicht GI, Zinck JA. Remote sensing of soil salinity: potentials and constraints. Remote Sens Environ. 2003;85:1–20.Article 

Google Scholar 
16.Shi YL, Liu XR, Zhang QW. Effects of combined biochar and organic fertilizer on nitrous oxide fluxes and the related nitrifier and denitrifier communities in a saline-alkali soil. Sci Total Environ. 2019;686:199–211.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
17.Konneke M, Bernhard AE, de la Torre JR, Walker CB, Waterbury JB, Stahl DA. Isolation of an autotrophic ammonia-oxidizing marine archaeon. Nature. 2005;437:543–6.PubMed 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
18.Bayer B, Vojvoda J, Offre P, Alves RJE, Elisabeth NH, Garcia JAL, et al. Physiological and genomic characterization of two novel marine thaumarchaeal strains indicates niche differentiation. ISME J. 2016;10:1051–63.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
19.Santoro AE, Dupont CL, Richter RA, Craig MT, Carini P, McIlvin MR, et al. Genomic and proteomic characterization of “Candidatus Nitrosopelagicus brevis”: An ammonia-oxidizing archaeon from the open ocean. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2015;112:1173–8.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
20.Pan KL, Gao JF, Li DC, Fan XY. The dominance of non-halophilic archaea in autotrophic ammonia oxidation of activated sludge under salt stress: a DNA-based stable isotope probing study. Bioresour Technol. 2019;291:8.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
21.Nejidat A. Nitrification and occurrence of salt-tolerant nitrifying bacteria in the Negev desert soils. FEMS Microbiol Ecol. 2005;52:21–29.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
22.Ward BB, O’Mullan GD. Worldwide distribution of Nitrosococcus oceani, a marine ammonia-oxidizing gamma-proteobacterium, detected by PCR and sequencing of 16S rRNA and amoA genes. Appl Environ Micro. 2002;68:4153–7.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
23.Koops HP, Böttcher B, Möller UC, Pommerening-Röser A, Stehr G. Description of a new species of Nitrosococcus. Arch Microbiol. 1990;154:244–8.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
24.Fumasoli A, Bürgmann H, Weissbrodt DG, Wells GF, Beck K, Mohn J, et al. Growth of Nitrosococcus-related ammonia oxidizing bacteria coincides with extremely low pH values in wastewater with high ammonia content. Environ Sci Technol. 2017;51:6857–66.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
25.Olivera NL, Prieto L, Bertiller MB, Ferrero MA. Sheep grazing and soil bacterial diversity in shrublands of the Patagonian Monte, Argentina. J Arid Environ. 2016;125:16–20.Article 

Google Scholar 
26.Pérez-Hernandez V, Hernandez-Guzman M, Serrano-Silva N, Luna-Guido M, Navarro-Noya YE, Montes-Molina JA, et al. Diversity of amoA and pmoA genes in extremely saline alkaline soils of the former lake Texcoco. Geomicrobiol J. 2020;37:785–97.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
27.Picone N, Pol A, Mesman R, van Kessel MAHJ, Cremers G, van Gelder AH. et al. Ammonia oxidation at pH 2.5 by a new gammaproteobacterial ammonia-oxidizing bacterium. ISME J. 2020;15:1150–64.PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
28.Pan H, Liu HY, Liu YW, Zhang QC, Luo Y, Liu XM, et al. Understanding the relationships between grazing intensity and the distribution of nitrifying communities in grassland soils. Sci Total Environ. 2018;634:1157–64.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
29.Santos JP, Mendes D, Monteiro M, Ribeiro H, Baptista MS, Borges MT, et al. Salinity impact on ammonia oxidizers activity and amoA expression in estuarine sediments. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci. 2018;211:177–87.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
30.Ye L, Zhang T. Ammonia-oxidizing bacteria dominates over ammonia-oxidizing archaea in a saline nitrification reactor under low DO and high nitrogen loading. Biotechnol Bioeng. 2011;108:2544–52.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
31.Luo S, Wang S, Tian L, Shi S, Xu S, Yang F, et al. Aggregate-related changes in soil microbial communities under different ameliorant applications in saline-sodic soils. Geoderma. 2018;329:108–17.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
32.Wang WJ, He HS, Zu YG, Guan Y, Liu ZG, Zhang ZH, et al. Addition of HPMA affects seed germination, plant growth and properties of heavy saline-alkali soil in northeastern China: comparison with other agents and determination of the mechanism. Plant Soil. 2011;339:177–91.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
33.Xia W, Zhang C, Zeng X, Feng Y, Jia Z. Autotrophic growth of nitrifying community in an agricultural soil. ISME J. 2011;5:1226–36.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
34.Francis CA, Roberts KJ, Beman JM, Santoro AE, Oakley BB. Ubiquity and diversity of ammonia-oxidizing archaea in water columns and sediments of the ocean. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2005;102:14683–8.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
35.Holmes AJ, Costello A, Lidstrom ME, Murrell JC. Evidence that participate methane monooxygenase and ammonia monooxygenase may be evolutionarily related. FEMS Microbiol Lett. 1995;132:203–8.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
36.Fowler SJ, Palomo A, Dechesne A, Mines PD, Smets BF. Comammox Nitrospira are abundant ammonia oxidizers in diverse groundwater-fed rapid sand filter communities. Environ Microbiol. 2018;20:1002–15.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
37.Zhao ZR, Huang GH, He SS, Zhou N, Wang MY, Dang CY, et al. Abundance and community composition of comammox bacteria in different ecosystems by a universal primer set. Sci Total Environ. 2019;691:145–55.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
38.Alves RJE, Minh BQ, Urich T, von Haeseler A, Schleper C. Unifying the global phylogeny and environmental distribution of ammonia-oxidising archaea based on amoA genes. Nat Commun. 2018;9:1517.PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
39.Richter M, Rossello-Mora R. Shifting the genomic gold standard for the prokaryotic species definition. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2009;106:19126–31.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
40.Konstantinidis KT, Rosselló-Móra R, Amann R. Uncultivated microbes in need of their own taxonomy. ISME J. 2017;11:2399–406.PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
41.Luo C, Rodriguez-R LM, Konstantinidis KT. MyTaxa: an advanced taxonomic classifier for genomic and metagenomic sequences. Nucleic Acids Res. 2014;42:e73.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
42.Chaumeil P-A, Mussig AJ, Hugenholtz P, Parks DH. GTDB-Tk: a toolkit to classify genomes with the Genome Taxonomy Database. Bioinformatics. 2020;36:1925–7.CAS 

Google Scholar 
43.Kuroda T, Mizushima T, Tsuchiya T. Physiological roles of three Na+/H+ antiporters in the halophilic bacterium Vibrio parahaemolyticus. Microbiol Immunol. 2005;49:711–9.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
44.Daebeler A, Kitzinger K, Koch H, Herbold CW, Steinfeder M, Schwarz J, et al. Exploring the upper pH limits of nitrite oxidation: diversity, ecophysiology, and adaptive traits of haloalkalitolerant. Nitrospira ISME J. 2020;14:2967–79.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
45.Padan E, Venturi M, Gerchman Y, Dover N. Na+/H+ antiporters. Biochim Biophys Acta. 2001;1505:144–57.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
46.Kraegeloh A, Amendt B, Kunte HJ. Potassium transport in a halophilic member of the bacteria domain: identification and characterization of the K+ uptake systems TrkH and TrkI from Halomonas elongata DSM 2581T. J Bacteriol. 2005;187:1036–43.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
47.Becker EA, Seitzer PM, Tritt A, Larsen D, Krusor M, Yao AI, et al. Phylogenetically driven sequencing of extremely halophilic archaea reveals strategies for static and dynamic osmo-response. PloS Genet. 2014;10:e1004784.PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
48.Cardoso FS, Castro RF, Borges N, Santos H. Biochemical and genetic characterization of the pathways for trehalose metabolism in Propionibacterium freudenreichii, and their role in stress response. Microbiology. 2007;153:270–80.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
49.Sadeghi A, Soltani BM, Nekouei MK, Jouzani GS, Mirzaei HH, Sadeghizadeh M. Diversity of the ectoines biosynthesis genes in the salt tolerant Streptomyces and evidence for inductive effect of ectoines on their accumulation. Microbiol Res. 2014;169:699–708.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
50.Ngugi DK, Blom J, Alam I, Rashid M, Ba-Alawi W, Zhang G, et al. Comparative genomics reveals adaptations of a halotolerant thaumarchaeon in the interfaces of brine pools in the Red Sea. ISME J. 2015;9:396–411.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
51.Spang A, Poehlein A, Offre P, Zumbragel S, Haider S, Rychlik N, et al. The genome of the ammonia-oxidizing Candidatus Nitrososphaera gargensis: insights into metabolic versatility and environmental adaptations. Environ Microbiol. 2012;14:3122–45.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
52.Glover HE. The relationship between inorganic nitrogen oxidation and organic carbon production in batch and chemostat cultures of marine nitrifying bacteria. Arch Microbiol. 1985;142:45–50.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
53.Lehtovirta-Morley LE, Ross J, Hink L, Weber EB, Gubry-Rangin C, Thion C, et al. Isolation of ‘Candidatus Nitrosocosmicus franklandus’, a novel ureolytic soil archaeal ammonia oxidiser with tolerance to high ammonia concentration. FEMS Microbiol Ecol. 2016;92:fiw057.PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
54.Kits KD, Sedlacek CJ, Lebedeva EV, Han P, Bulaev A, Pjevac P, et al. Kinetic analysis of a complete nitrifier reveals an oligotrophic lifestyle. Nature. 2017;549:269–72.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
55.Hink L, Gubry-Rangin C, Nicol GW, Prosser JI. The consequences of niche and physiological differentiation of archaeal and bacterial ammonia oxidisers for nitrous oxide emissions. ISME J. 2018;12:1084–93.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
56.Shen JP, Zhang LM, Zhu YG, Zhang JB, He JZ. Abundance and composition of ammonia-oxidizing bacteria and ammonia-oxidizing archaea communities of an alkaline sandy loam. Environ Microbiol. 2008;10:1601–11.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
57.Jia Z, Conrad R. Bacteria rather than archaea dominate microbial ammonia oxidation in an agricultural soil. Environ Microbiol. 2009;11:1658–71.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
58.Millero FJ, Feistel R, Wright DG, McDougall TJ. The composition of Standard Seawater and the definition of the Reference-Composition Salinity Scale. Deep-Sea Res Part I-Oceanogr Res Pap. 2008;55:50–72.Article 

Google Scholar 
59.Mosier AC, Allen EE, Kim M, Ferriera S, Francis CA. Genome sequence of “Candidatus Nitrosopumilus salaria” BD31, an ammonia-oxidizing archaeon from the San Francisco bay estuary. J Bacteriol. 2012;194:2121–2.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
60.Matsutani N, Nakagawa T, Nakamura K, Takahashi R, Yoshihara K, Tokuyama T. Enrichment of a novel marine ammonia-oxidizing archaeon obtained from sand of an eelgrass zone. Microbes Environ. 2011;26:23–29.PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
61.Park BJ, Park SJ, Yoon DN, Schouten S, Damste JSS, Rhee SK. Cultivation of autotrophic ammonia-oxidizing archaea from marine sediments in coculture with sulfur-oxidizing bacteria. Appl Environ Micro. 2010;76:7575–87.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
62.Parada AE, Fuhrman JA. Marine archaeal dynamics and interactions with the microbial community over 5 years from surface to seafloor. ISME J. 2017;11:2510–25.PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
63.Wu YJ, Whang LM, Fukushima T, Chang SH. Responses of ammonia-oxidizing archaeal and betaproteobacterial populations to wastewater salinity in a full-scale municipal wastewater treatment plant. J Biosci Bioeng. 2013;115:424–32.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
64.Cardarelli EL, Bargar JR, Francis CA. Diverse Thaumarchaeota dominate subsurface ammonia-oxidizing communities in semi-arid floodplains in the western United States. Micro Ecol. 2020;80:778–92.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
65.Wang HT, Gilbert JA, Zhu YG, Yang XR. Salinity is a key factor driving the nitrogen cycling in the mangrove sediment. Sci Total Environ. 2018;631-2:1342–9.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
66.Oren A. Thermodynamic limits to microbial life at high salt concentrations. Environ Microbiol. 2011;13:1908–23.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
67.Ito M, Guffanti AA, Oudega B, Krulwich TA. mrp, a multigene, multifunctional locus in Bacillus subtilis with roles in resistance to cholate and to Na+ and in pH homeostasis. J Bacteriol. 1999;181:2394–402.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
68.Krulwich TA, Sachs G, Padan E. Molecular aspects of bacterial pH sensing and homeostasis. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2011;9:330–43.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
69.Swartz TH, Ikewada S, Ishikawa O, Ito M, Krulwich TA. The Mrp system: a giant among monovalent cation/proton antiporters? Extremophiles. 2005;9:345–54.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
70.Oren A. Bioenergetic aspects of halophilism. Microbiol Mol Biol R. 1999;63:334–48.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
71.Mackay MA, Norton RS, Borowitzka LJ. Organic osmoregulatory solutes in Cyanobacteria. J Gen Microbiol. 1984;130:2177–91.CAS 

Google Scholar 
72.Sadler M, McAninch M, Alico R, Hochstein LI. The intracellular Na+ and K+ composition of the moderately halophilic bacterium, Paracoccus halodenitrificans. Can J Microbiol. 1980;26:496–502.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
73.Brown AD. Compatible solutes and extreme water stress in eukaryotic micro-organisms. Adv Micro Physiol. 1978;17:181–243.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
74.Reed RH, Warr SRC, Richardson DL, Moore DJ, Stewart WDP. Multiphasic osmotic adjustment in a euryhaline cyanobacterium. FEMS Microbiol Lett. 1985;28:225–9.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
75.Welsh DT, Herbert RA. Osmoadaptation of Thiocapsa roseopersicina OP-1 in batch and continuous culture: Accumulation of K+ and sucrose in response to osmotic stress. FEMS Microbiol Ecol. 1993;13:151–7.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
76.Sauvage D, Hamelin J, Larher F. Glycine betaine and other structurally related compounds improve the salt tolerance of Rhizobium meliloti. Plant Sci Lett. 1983;31:291–302.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
77.Campbell MA, Chain PSG, Dang H, Sheikh EI, Norton AF, Ward JM, et al. MG. Nitrosococcus watsonii sp. nov., a new species of marine obligate ammonia-oxidizing bacteria that is not omnipresent in the world’s oceans: calls tovalidate the names’Nitrosococcus halophilus’ and ‘Nitrosomonas mobilis’. FEMS Microbiol Ecol. 2011;76:39–48.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
78.Arguelles JC. Physiological roles of trehalose in bacteria and yeasts: a comparative analysis. Arch Microbiol. 2000;174:217–24.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
79.Widderich N, Czech L, Elling FJ, Könneke M, Stöveken N, Pittelkow M, et al. Strangers in the archaeal world: osmostress-responsive biosynthesis of ectoine and hydroxyectoine by the marine thaumarchaeon Nitrosopumilus maritimus. Environ Microbiol. 2016;18:1227–48.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
80.Bursy J, Pierik AJ, Pica N, Bremer E. Osmotically induced synthesis of the compatible solute hydroxyectoine is mediated by an evolutionarily conserved ectoine hydroxylase. J Biol Chem. 2007;282:31147–55.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
81.Kol S, Merlo ME, Scheltema RA, de Vries M, Vonk RJ, Kikkert NA, et al. Metabolomic characterization of the salt stress response in Streptomyces coelicolor. Appl Environ Micro. 2010;76:2574–81.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
82.Csonka LN. Physiological and genetic responses of bacteria to osmotic stress. Microbiol Rev. 1989;53:121–47.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
83.Saum SH, Sydow JF, Palm P, Pfeiffer F, Oesterhelt D, Muller V. Biochemical and molecular characterization of the biosynthesis of glutamine and glutamate, two major compatible solutes in the moderately halophilic bacterium Halobacillus halophilus. J Bacteriol. 2006;188:6808–15.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
84.Ventosa A, Nieto JJ, Oren A. Biology of moderately halophilic aerobic bacteria. Microbiol Mol Biol R. 1998;62:504–44.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
85.Mahan MJ, Csonka LN. Genetic analysis of the proBA genes of Salmonella typhimurium: physical and genetic analysis of the cloned proB+A+ genes of Escherichia coli and of a mutant allele that confers proline overproduction and enhanced osmotolerance. J Bacteriol. 1983;156:1249–62.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
86.Empadinhas N, Pereira PJB, Albuquerque L, Costa J, Sa-Moura B, Marques AT, et al. Functional and structural characterization of a novel mannosyl-3-phosphoglycerate synthase from Rubrobacter xylanophilus reveals its dual substrate specificity. Mol Microbiol. 2011;79:76–93.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
87.Santos H, da Costa MS. Compatible solutes of organisms that live in hot saline environments. Environ Microbiol. 2002;4:501–9.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
88.Koops HP, Purkhold U, Pommerening-Röser A, Timmermann G, Wagner M. The Lithoautotrophic Ammonia-Oxidizing Bacteria. In: Dworkin M, Falkow S, Rosenberg E, Schleifer KH, Stackebrandt E (eds). The Prokaryotes: a Handbook on the Biology of Bacteria, 3rd edn. New York, USA: Springer Science+Business Media; 2006, pp 778–811. More

1.Palumbi, S. R. Humans as the world’s greatest evolutionary force. Science 293, 1786–1790 (2001).ADS 
PubMed 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
2.Hendry, A. P., Gotanda, K. M. & Svensson, E. I. Human Influences on Evolution, and the Ecological and Societal Consequences (The Royal Society, 2017).Book 

Google Scholar 
3.Otto, S. P. Adaptation, speciation and extinction in the Anthropocene. Proc. R. Soc. B 285, 20182047 (2018).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
4.Dynesius, M. & Nilsson, C. Fragmentation and flow regulation of river systems in the northern third of the world. Science 266, 753–762 (1994).ADS 
PubMed 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
5.Gibson, L., Wilman, E. N. & Laurance, W. F. How green is ‘green’energy?. Trends Ecol. Evol. 32, 922–935 (2017).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
6.Calles, O. & Greenberg, L. Connectivity is a two-way street—the need for a holistic approach to fish passage problems in regulated rivers. River Res. Appl. 25, 1268–1286 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
7.Poff, N. L. et al. The natural flow regime. Bioscience 47, 769–784 (1997).Article 

Google Scholar 
8.Haraldstad, T. et al. Anthropogenic and natural size-related selection act in concert during brown trout (Salmo trutta) smolt river descent. Hydrobiologia, 1–14 (2020).9.Limburg, K. E. & Waldman, J. R. Dramatic declines in North Atlantic diadromous fishes. Bioscience 59, 955–965 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
10.Belletti, B. et al. More than one million barriers fragment Europe’s rivers. Nature 588, 436–441 (2020).ADS 
PubMed 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
11.Klemetsen, A. et al. Atlantic salmon Salmo salar L., brown trout Salmo trutta L. and Arctic charr Salvelinus alpinus (L.): a review of aspects of their life histories. Ecol. Freshw. Fish 12, 1–59 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
12.Thorstad, E. B., Økland, F., Aarestrup, K. & Heggberget, T. G. Factors affecting the within-river spawning migration of Atlantic salmon, with emphasis on human impacts. Rev. Fish Biol. Fish. 18, 345–371 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
13.Parrish, D. L., Behnke, R. J., Gephard, S. R., McCormick, S. D. & Reeves, G. H. Why aren’t there more Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar)?. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 55, 281–287 (1998).Article 

Google Scholar 
14.Larinier, M. Fish passage experience at small-scale hydro-electric power plants in France. Hydrobiologia 609, 97–108 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
15.Coutant, C. C. & Whitney, R. R. Fish behavior in relation to passage through hydropower turbines: a review. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 129, 351–380 (2000).Article 

Google Scholar 
16.Montèn, E. Fish and Turbines: Fish Injuries During Passage Through Power Station Turbines (Nordsteds Tryckeri, 1985).
Google Scholar 
17.Pracheil, B. M., DeRolph, C. R., Schramm, M. P. & Bevelhimer, M. S. A fish-eye view of riverine hydropower systems: the current understanding of the biological response to turbine passage. Rev. Fish Biol. Fisheries 26, 153–167 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
18.Calles, O., Rivinoja, P. & Greenberg, L. A Historical perspective on downstream passage at hydroelectric plants in swedish rivers. In: Ecohydraulics. Wiley (2013).19.Silva, A. T. et al. The future of fish passage science, engineering, and practice. Fish Fish. 19, 340–362 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
20.Noonan, M. J., Grant, J. W. A. & Jackson, C. D. A quantitative assessment of fish passage efficiency. Fish Fish. 13, 450–464 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
21.Scruton, D. A., McKinley, R. S., Kouwen, N., Eddy, W. & Booth, R. K. Improvement and optimization of fish guidance efficiency (FGE) at a behavioural fish protection system for downstream migrating Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) smolts. River Res. Appl. 19, 605–617 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
22.Mallen-Cooper, M. & Brand, D. A. Non-salmonids in a salmonid fishway: what do 50 years of data tell us about past and future fish passage?. Fish. Manage. Ecol. 14, 319–332 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
23.Bunt, C., Castro-Santos, T. & Haro, A. Performance of fish passage structures at upstream barriers to migration. River Res. Appl. 28, 457–478 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
24.Haugen, T. O., Aass, P., Stenseth, N. C. & Vøllestad, L. A. Changes in selection and evolutionary responses in migratory brown trout following the construction of a fish ladder. Evol. Appl. 1, 319–335 (2008).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
25.Mallen-Cooper, M. & Stuart, I. G. Optimising Denil fishways for passage of small and large fishes. Fish. Manage. Ecol. 14, 61–71 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
26.Maynard, G. A., Kinnison, M. & Zydlewski, J. D. Size selection from fishways and potential evolutionary responses in a threatened Atlantic salmon population. River Res. Appl. 33, 1004–1015 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
27.Lothian, A. J. et al. Are we designing fishways for diversity? Potential selection on alternative phenotypes resulting from differential passage in brown trout. J Environ Manag 262, 110317 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
28.Haraldstad, T., Haugen, T. O., Kroglund, F., Olsen, E. M. & Höglund, E. Migratory passage structures at hydropower plants as potential physiological and behavioural selective agents. R. Soc. Open Sci. 6, 190 (2019).Article 

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

Google Scholar 
30.Dochtermann, N. A., Schwab, T. & Sih, A. The contribution of additive genetic variation to personality variation: heritability of personality. Proc. R. Soc. B: Biol. Sci. 282, 20142201 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
31.Réale, D. et al. Personality and the emergence of the pace-of-life syndrome concept at the population level. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B: Biol. Sci. 365, 4051–4063 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
32.Haraldstad, T., Höglund, E., Kroglund, F., Haugen, T. O. & Forseth, T. Common mechanisms for guidance efficiency of descending Atlantic salmon smolts in small and large hydroelectric power plants. River Res. Appl. 34, 1179–1185 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
33.Larsen, M. H., Thorn, A. N., Skov, C. & Aarestrup, K. Effects of passive integrated transponder tags on survival and growth of juvenile Atlantic salmon Salmo salar. Anim. Biotelem. 1, 19 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
34.Vollset, K. W. et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of PIT tagging effects on mortality and growth of juvenile salmonids. Rev. Fish Biol. Fish, 1–16 (2020).35.Adriaenssens, B. & Johnsson, J. I. Natural selection, plasticity and the emergence of a behavioural syndrome in the wild. Ecol. Lett. 16, 47–55 (2013).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
36.Dingemanse, N. J. et al. Behavioural syndromes differ predictably between 12 populations of three-spined stickleback. J. Anim. Ecol. 76, 1128–1138 (2007).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
37.Larsen, M. H. et al. Effects of emergence time and early social rearing environment on behaviour of Atlantic salmon: consequences for juvenile fitness and smolt migration. PLoS ONE 10, e0119127 (2015).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
38.Castanheira, M. F., Herrera, M., Costas, B., Conceição, L. E. & Martins, C. I. Can we predict personality in fish? Searching for consistency over time and across contexts. PLoS ONE 8, e62037 (2013).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
39.Huntingford, F. et al. Coping strategies in a strongly schooling fish, the common carp Cyprinus carpio. J. Fish Biol. 76, 1576–1591 (2010).PubMed 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
40.Brown, C., Jones, F. & Braithwaite, V. Correlation between boldness and body mass in natural populations of the poeciliid Brachyrhaphis episcopi. J. Fish Biol. 71, 1590–1601 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
41.R Development Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing.). R Foundation for Statistical Computing (2016).42.Akaike, H. A. new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE Trans. Autom. Control 19, 716–723 (1974).ADS 
MathSciNet 
MATH 
Article 

Google Scholar 
43.Anderson, D. R. Model-Based Interference in the Life Sciences: A Primer on Evidence (Springer, 2008).MATH 
Book 

Google Scholar 
44.Barton, K. MuMIn: Multi-Model Inference. R package version 1.43.17. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=MuMIn (2020).45.Brunham, A. & Anderson D, R. Model selection and multimodel inference: A practical information-theoretic approach. 2nd edn (Springer-Verlag, New York 2002).46.Fjeldstad, H. P., Alfredsen, K. & Boissy, T. Optimising Atlantic salmon smolt survival by use of hydropower simulation modelling in a regulated river. Fish. Manage. Ecol. 21, 22–31 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
47.Calles, O. et al. Anordning för upp- och nedströmspassage av fisk vid vattenanläggningar (2013).48.Larinier, M., Travade, F. The development and evaluation of downstream bypasses for juvenile salmonids at small hydroelectric plants in France. Innov. Fish Passage Technol. 25–42 (1999).49.Turnpenny, A. W. H., O`Keeffe, N. Screening for intake and Outfalls: a best practice guide (2005).50.Réale, D., Reader, S. M., Sol, D., McDougall, P. T. & Dingemanse, N. J. Integrating animal temperament within ecology and evolution. Biol. Rev. 82, 291–318 (2007).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
51.Taylor, M. K. & Cooke, S. J. Repeatability of movement behaviour in a wild salmonid revealed by telemetry. J. Fish Biol. 84, 1240–1246 (2014).PubMed 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
52.Odling-Smee, L. & Braithwaite, V. A. The role of learning in fish orientation. Fish Fish. 4, 235–246 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
53.Lucon-Xiccato, T., Montalbano, G. & Bertolucci, C. Personality traits covary with individual differences in inhibitory abilities in 2 species of fish. Curr. Zool. 66, 187–195 (2019).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
54.Endler, J. A. Natural Selection in the Wild (Princeton University Press, 1986).
Google Scholar 
55.Bell, A. M., Hankison, S. J. & Laskowski, K. L. The repeatability of behaviour: a meta-analysis. Anim. Behav. 77, 771–783 (2009).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
56.Sih, A., Bell, A. & Johnson, J. C. Behavioral syndromes: an ecological and evolutionary overview. Trends Ecol. Evol. 19, 372–378 (2004).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
57.Wuerz, Y. & Krüger, O. Personality over ontogeny in zebra finches: long-term repeatable traits but unstable behavioural syndromes. Front. Zool. 12, S9 (2015).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

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

Google Scholar 
59.Cordero-Rivera, A. Behavioral diversity (ethodiversity): a neglected level in the study of biodiversity. Front. Ecol. Evol. 5, 7 (2017).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
60.Biro, P. A. & Post, J. R. Rapid depletion of genotypes with fast growth and bold personality traits from harvested fish populations. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 105, 2919–2922 (2008).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
61.Uusi-Heikkilä, S., Wolter, C., Klefoth, T. & Arlinghaus, R. A behavioral perspective on fishing-induced evolution. Trends Ecol. Evol. 23, 419–421 (2008).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
62.Cooke, S. J., Suski, C. D., Ostrand, K. G., Wahl, D. H. & Philipp, D. P. Physiological and behavioral consequences of long-term artificial hselection for vulnerability to recreational angling in a teleost fish. Physiol. Biochem. Zool. 80, 480–490 (2007).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar  More

Host and mutual symbionts decline at different rates following consecutive cyclones and bleachingBefore and after disturbances, we surveyed Acropora corals known to host Gobiodon coral gobies along line (30 m) and cross (two 4-m by 1-m belt) transects. In February 2014, prior to cyclones and bleaching events, most of these Acropora corals were inhabited by Gobiodon coral gobies. Gobies were not found in corals under 7-cm average diameter, therefore we only sampled bigger corals. The vast majority of transects (95%) had Acropora corals. On average there were 3.24 ± 0.25 (mean ± standard error) Acropora coral species per transect (Fig. 2a) and a total of 17 species were observed among all 2014 transects. Average coral diameter was 25.4 ± 1.0 cm (Fig. 2b), with some corals reaching over 100 cm. Only 4.1 ± 1.4% of corals lacked any goby inhabitants (Fig. 2c). On average there were 3.37 ± 0.26 species of gobies per transect (Fig. 2d) and a total of 13 species among all 2014 transects. In each occupied coral there were 2.20 ± 0.14 gobies (Fig. 2e), with a maximum of 11 individuals of the same species.Figure 2Effects of consecutive climate disturbances on coral and goby populations. Changes in Acropora (a) richness (n = 279), and (b) average diameter (n = 244), (c) percent goby occupancy (n = 244) and Gobiodon (d) richness (n = 279), and (e) group size (n = 230) per transect (n = sample size per variable) before and after each cyclone (black cyclone symbols) and after two consecutive heatwaves/bleaching events (white coral symbols) around Lizard Island, Great Barrier Reef, Australia. Error bars are standard error. Fish and coral symbols above each graph illustrate the change in means for each variable among sampling events from post-hoc tests. Figures were illustrated in R (v3.5.2)33 and Microsoft Office PowerPoint 2016.Full size imageIn January–February 2015, 9 months after Cyclone Ita (category 4) struck from the north (Supplementary Fig. 1), follow-up surveys revealed no changes to coral richness (p = 0.986, see Supplementary Table 1 for all statistical outputs) relative to February 2014, but corals were 19% smaller (p  More

1.Mitchard, E. T. A., Saatchi, S. S., Gerard, F. F., Lewis, S. L. & Meir, P. Measuring woody encroachment along a forest-savanna boundary in Central Africa. Earth Interact. 13, 1–29 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
2.Murphy, B. P. & Bowman, D. M. J. S. What controls the distribution of tropical forest and savanna?. Ecol. Lett. 15, 748–758 (2012).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
3.Staver, A. C., Archibald, S. & Levin, S. Tree cover in sub-Saharan Africa: Rainfall and fire constrain forest and savanna as alternative stable states. Ecology 92, 1063–1072 (2011).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
4.Bowman, D. M. J. S., Murphy, B. P. & Banfai, D. S. Has global environmental change caused monsoon rainforests to expand in the Australian monsoon tropics?. Landsc. Ecol. 25, 1247–1260 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
5.Favier, C., Namur, C. D. & Dubois, M. F. Forest progression modes in littoral Congo, central atlantic Africa. J. Biogeogr. 31, 1445–1461 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
6.Puyravaud, J. P., Dufour, C. & Aravajy, S. Rain forest expansion mediated by successional processes in vegetation thickets in the Western Ghats of India. J. Biogeogr. 30, 1067–1080 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
7.Tng, D. Y. P. et al. Humid tropical rain forest has expanded into eucalypt forest and savanna over the last 50 years. Ecol. Evol. 2, 34–45 (2012).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
8.Mariano, V., Rebolo, I. F. & Christianini, A. V. Fire sensitive species dominate seed rain after fire supression: implications for plant community diversity and woody encroachment in the Cerrado. Biotropica 51, 5–9 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
9.Ferreira, A. V., Bruna, E. M. & Vasconcelos, H. L. Seed predators limit plant recruitment in neotropical savannas. Oikos 120, 1013–1022 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
10.Azihou, A. F., Glèlè Kakaï, R. & Sinsin, B. Do isolated gallery-forest trees facilitate recruitment of forest seedlings and saplings in savannna?. Acta Oecol. 53, 11–18 (2013).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
11.Duarte, L. D. S., Dos-Santos, M. M. G., Hartz, S. M. & Pillar, V. D. Role of nurse plants in Araucaria Forest expansion over grassland in south Brazil. Austral Ecol. 31, 520–528 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
12.Hoffmann, W. A. The Effects of Fire and Cover on Seedling Establishment in a Neotropical Savanna. J. Ecol. 84, 383–393 (1996).Article 

Google Scholar 
13.Hoffmann, W. A., Orthen, B. & Franco, A. C. Constraints to seedling success of savanna and forest trees across the savanna-forest boundary. Oecologia 140, 252–260 (2004).ADS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
14.Lawes, M. J., Murphy, B. P., Midgley, J. J. & Russell-Smith, J. Are the eucalypt and non-eucalypt components of Australian tropical savannas independent?. Oecologia 166, 229–239 (2011).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
15.Russell-Smith, J., Stanton, P. J., Whitehead, P. J. & Edwards, A. Rain forest invasion of eucalypt-dominated woodland savanna, iron range, north-eastern Australia: I. Successional processes. J. Biogeogr. 31, 1293–1303 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
16.Bruno, J. F., Stachowicz, J. J. & Bertness, M. D. Inclusion of facilitation into ecological theory. Trends Ecol. Evol. 18, 119–125 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
17.Callaway, R. M. Positive interactions among plants. Bot. Rev. 61, 306–349 (1995).Article 

Google Scholar 
18.Slocum, M. G. & Horvitz, C. C. Seed arrival under different genera of trees in a neotropical pasture. Plant Ecol. 149, 51–62 (2000).Article 

Google Scholar 
19.Schlawin, J. R. & Zahawi, R. A. ‘Nucleating’ succession in recovering neotropical wet forests: the legacy of remnant trees. J. Veg. Sci. 19, 485–492 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
20.Slocum, M. G. How tree species differ as recruitment foci in a tropical pasture. Ecology 82, 2547–2559 (2001).Article 

Google Scholar 
21.Fujita, T. Ficus natalensis facilitates the establishment of a montane rain-forest tree in south-east African tropical woodlands. J. Trop. Ecol. 30, 303–310 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
22.de Dantas, V. L. et al. Plant dispersal strategies and the colonization of araucaria forest patches in a grassland-forest mosaic. J. Veg. Sci. 18, 847–858 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
23.Campbell, B., Frost, P. & Byron, N. Miombo woodlands and their use: overview and key issues. In The Miombo in transition: woodlands and welfare in Africa (ed. Campbell, B.) 1–5 (Center for International Forestry Research, 1996).
Google Scholar 
24.White, F., Dowsett-Lemaire, F. & Chapman, S. Evergreen Forest Flora of Malawi (Royal Botanic Gardens, 2001).
Google Scholar 
25.Chapman, J. D. PART II Description of the forest. In The evergreen forests of Malawi (eds. Chapman, J. D. & White, F.) 113–180 (Commonwealth Forestry Institute, 1970).
Google Scholar 
26.Hoffmann, W. A. et al. Ecological thresholds at the savanna-forest boundary: how plant traits, resources and fire govern the distribution of tropical biomes. Ecol. Lett. 15, 759–768 (2012).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
27.Frazer, G. W., Canham, C. D., & Lertzman, K. P. Gap Light Analyzer (GLA) 2.0: Imaging software to extract canopy structure and gap light transmission indices from true-colour fisheye photographs. http://remmain.rem.sfu.ca/downloads/Forestry/GLAV2UsersManual.pdf (1999).28.Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B. & Walker, S. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J. Stat. Softw. 67, 1–48 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
29.Hothorn, T., Bretz, F. & Westfall, P. Simultaneous inference in general parametric models. Biom. J. 50, 346–363 (2008).MathSciNet 
PubMed 
MATH 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
30.Trauernicht, C., Murphy, B. P., Portner, T. E. & Bowman, D. M. J. S. Tree cover-fire interactions promote the persistence of a fire-sensitive conifer in a highly flammable savanna. J. Ecol. 100, 958–968 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
31.Castro, J., Zamora, R., Hódar, J. A. & Gómez, J. M. Seedling establishment of a boreal tree species (Pinus sylvestris) at its southernmost distribution limit: consequences of being in a marginal Mediterranean habitat. J. Ecol. 92, 266–277 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
32.Gómez-Aparicio, L., Gómez, J. M., Zamora, R. & Boettinger, J. L. Canopy vs. soil effects of shrubs facilitating tree seedlings in Mediterranean montane ecosystems. J. Veg. Sci. 16, 191–198 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
33.Smit, C., Den Ouden, J. & Díaz, M. Facilitation of Quercus ilex recruitment by shrubs in Mediterranean open woodlands. J. Veg. Sci. 19, 193–200 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
34.Rao, S. J., Iason, G. R., Hulbert, I. A. R., Elston, D. A. & Racey, P. A. The effect of sapling density, heather height and season on browsing by mountain hares on birch. J. Appl. Ecol. 40, 626–638 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
35.de Dantas, V. L., Hirota, M., Oliveira, R. S. & Pausas, J. G. Disturbance maintains alternative biome states. Ecol. Lett. 19, 12–19 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
36.Terborgh, J. et al. Megafaunal influences on tree recruitment in African equatorial forests. Ecography 39, 180–186 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
37.Ripple, R. et al. Bushmeat hunting and extinction risk to the world’s mammals. R. Soc. Open Sci. 3, 160498. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.160498 (2016).ADS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
38.Hegerl, C., Burgess, N., Nielsen, M., Martin, E., Ciolli, M., & Rovero, F. Using camera trap data to assess the impact of bushmeat hunting on forest mammals in Tanzania. Oryx 51(1), 87–97 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
39.Bowman, D. M. J. S. & Panton, W. J. Factors that control monsoon-rainforest seedling establishment and growth in North Australian Eucalyptus Savanna. J. Ecol. 81, 297–304 (1993).Article 

Google Scholar 
40.Ruggiero, C. P. G., Batalha, M. A., Pivello, V. R. & Meirelles, S. T. Soil-vegetation relationships in cerrado (Brazilian savanna) and semideciduous forest, Southeastern Brazil. Plant Ecol. 160, 1–16 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
41.Viani, R. A. G., Rodrigues, R. R., Dawson, T. E. & Oliveira, R. S. Savanna soil fertility limits growth but not survival of tropical forest tree seedlings. Plant Soil 349, 341–353 (2011).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
42.Chen, J. et al. Soil nutrient availability determines the facilitative effects of cushion plants on other plant species at high elevations in the south-eastern Himalayas. Plant Ecolog. Divers. 8, 199–210 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
43.Zahawi, R. A., Holl, K. D., Cole, R. J. & Reid, J. L. Testing applied nucleation as a strategy to facilitate tropical forest recovery. J. Appl. Ecol. 50(2013), 88–96 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
44.Clark, C. J., Poulsen, J. R., Connor, E. F. & Parker, V. T. Fruiting trees as dispersal foci in a semi-deciduous tropical forest. Oecologia 139, 66–75 (2004).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
45.Carlo, T. A. & Aukema, J. E. Female-directed dispersal and facilitation between a tropical mistletoe and a dioecious host. Ecology 86, 3245–3251 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
46.Bond, W. J., Woodward, F. I. & Midgley, G. F. The global distribution of ecosystems in a world without fire. New Phytol. 165, 525–538 (2005).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar  More

Laris also notes that people in West Africa overwhelmingly set early dry season (EDS) fires. This is true for Burkina Faso, Senegal, Benin, Togo, Ghana, which all have an early burning pattern (See Table 1). However, this is not the case for Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Guinea-Bissau, which have most emissions in the late dry season (LDS) (see Table 1). Also, if we sum the total EDS and LDS emissions for West African Countries, then 45% of emissions occur in the EDS and 55% in the late dry season (see Table 1). The total West African contribution is around 8% of the total African savanna emissions—a relatively small contributor.We haven’t suggested that the early burning practise would work for all of West Africa, but the evidence suggests that it would work for Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Guinea-Bissau (see Table 1). We agree, many of the West African countries have significant EDS burning patterns like Burkina Faso, Senegal, Benin, Togo and Ghana and would not benefit from the approach. However, for those countries with significant EDS burning that still have significant LDS emissions as well, such as Mali and Côte d’Ivoire, there may be some opportunity for further emissions reductions through improved fire management practices as presented in our paper3.Laris1 also points out that the same EDS regime proposed is one that was developed by indigenous people and that it has been applied by Africans for centuries. The same is true for Australia, but colonial occupation altered that, as it has in some areas of Africa. A new incentive in the form of carbon payments for early burning in Australia has empowered local indigenous people to reconnect to their traditional lands and fulfil their cultural obligations and a diversity burning practices14. More

1.Lewis, S. L. & Maslin, M. A. Defining the anthropocene. Nature 519, 171–180 (2015).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
2.Tilman, D. et al. Future threats to biodiversity and pathways to their prevention. Nature 546, 73–81 (2017).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
3.Pinto-Ledezma, J. N. & Rivero Mamani, M. L. Temporal patterns of deforestation and fragmentation in lowland Bolivia: Implications for climate change. Clim. Change 127, 43–54 (2014).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
4.Allen, J. M., Folk, R. A., Soltis, P. S., Soltis, D. E. & Guralnick, R. P. Biodiversity synthesis across the green branches of the tree of life. Nat. Plants 5, 11–13 (2019).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
5.Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, IPBES. Summary for policymakers of the global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services. Accessed 15 Feb 2021. https://zenodo.org/record/3553579. https://doi.org/10.5281/ZENODO.3553579 (2019). 6.Cavender-Bares, J., Balvanera, P., King, E. & Polasky, S. Ecosystem service trade-offs across global contexts and scales. Ecol. Soc. 20, art22 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
7.Chaplin-Kramer, R. et al. Global modeling of nature’s contributions to people. Science 366, 255–258 (2019).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
8.Díaz, S. et al. Pervasive human-driven decline of life on Earth points to the need for transformative change. Science 366, eaax3100 (2019).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
9.Watson, J. E. M. et al. Set a global target for ecosystems. Nature 578, 360–362 (2020).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
10.Jetz, W. et al. Essential biodiversity variables for mapping and monitoring species populations. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 3, 539–551 (2019).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
11.Mateo, R. G., Mokany, K. & Guisan, A. Biodiversity models: What if unsaturation is the rule?. Trends Ecol. Evol. 32, 556–566 (2017).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
12.Pereira, H. M. et al. Essential biodiversity variables. Science 339, 277–278 (2013).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
13.Ferrier, S. & Guisan, A. Spatial modelling of biodiversity at the community level. J. Appl. Ecol. 43, 393–404 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
14.Guisan, A. & Rahbek, C. SESAM—A new framework integrating macroecological and species distribution models for predicting spatio-temporal patterns of species assemblages: Predicting spatio-temporal patterns of species assemblages. J. Biogeogr. 38, 1433–1444 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
15.Cavender-Bares, J., Schweiger, A. K., Pinto-Ledezma, J. N. & Meireles, J. E. Applying remote sensing to biodiversity science. in Remote Sensing of Plant Biodiversity (eds. Cavender-Bares, J. et al.) 13–42 (Springer, 2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-33157-3_2.Chapter 

Google Scholar 
16.Fawcett, D. et al. Advancing retrievals of surface reflectance and vegetation indices over forest ecosystems by combining imaging spectroscopy, digital object models, and 3D canopy modelling. Remote Sens. Environ. 204, 583–595 (2018).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
17.Randin, C. F. et al. Monitoring biodiversity in the Anthropocene using remote sensing in species distribution models. Remote Sens. Environ. 239, 111626 (2020).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
18.Turner, W. Sensing biodiversity. Science 346, 301–302 (2014).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
19.D’Amen, M., Pradervand, J.-N. & Guisan, A. Predicting richness and composition in mountain insect communities at high resolution: A new test of the SESAM framework: Community-level models of insects. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 24, 1443–1453 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
20.Pottier, J. et al. The accuracy of plant assemblage prediction from species distribution models varies along environmental gradients: Climate and species assembly predictions. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 22, 52–63 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
21.Zurell, D. et al. Testing species assemblage predictions from stacked and joint species distribution models. J. Biogeogr. 47, 101–113 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
22.D’Amen, M. et al. Improving spatial predictions of taxonomic, functional and phylogenetic diversity. J. Ecol. 106, 76–86 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
23.Dobrowski, S. Z. et al. Modeling plant ranges over 75 years of climate change in California, USA: Temporal transferability and species traits. Ecol. Monogr. 81, 241–257 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
24.Soria-Auza, R. W. et al. Impact of the quality of climate models for modelling species occurrences in countries with poor climatic documentation: A case study from Bolivia. Ecol. Model. 221, 1221–1229 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
25.Rocchini, D. et al. Satellite remote sensing to monitor species diversity: Potential and pitfalls. Remote Sens. Ecol. Conserv. 2, 25–36 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
26.Schulte to Bühne, H. & Pettorelli, N. Better together: Integrating and fusing multispectral and radar satellite imagery to inform biodiversity monitoring, ecological research and conservation science. Methods Ecol. Evol. 9, 849–865 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
27.Hansen, M. C. et al. High-resolution global maps of 21st-century forest cover change. Science 342, 850–853 (2013).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
28.Hobi, M. L. et al. A comparison of Dynamic Habitat Indices derived from different MODIS products as predictors of avian species richness. Remote Sens. Environ. 195, 142–152 (2017).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
29.Radeloff, V. C. et al. The Dynamic Habitat Indices (DHIs) from MODIS and global biodiversity. Remote Sens. Environ. 222, 204–214 (2019).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
30.Pinto-Ledezma, J. N. & Cavender-Bares, J. Using remote sensing for modeling and monitoring species distributions. In Remote Sensing of Plant Biodiversity (eds. Cavender-Bares, J., Gamon, J. A. & Townsend, P. A.) 199–223 (Springer International Publishing, 2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-33157-3_9.31.Fernández, N., Ferrier, S., Navarro, L. M. & Pereira, H. M. Essential biodiversity variables: Integrating in-situ observations and remote sensing through modeling. In Remote Sensing of Plant Biodiversity (eds. Cavender-Bares, J., Gamon, J. A. & Townsend, P. A.) 485–501 (Springer International Publishing, 2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-33157-3_18.32.Skidmore, A. K. et al. Priority list of biodiversity metrics to observe from space. Nat. Ecol. Evol. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-021-01451-x (2021).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
33.Saatchi, S., Buermann, W., ter Steege, H., Mori, S. & Smith, T. B. Modeling distribution of Amazonian tree species and diversity using remote sensing measurements. Remote Sens. Environ. 112, 2000–2017 (2008).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
34.He, K. S. et al. Will remote sensing shape the next generation of species distribution models?. Remote Sens. Ecol. Conserv. 1, 4–18 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
35.Cord, A. F., Meentemeyer, R. K., Leitão, P. J. & Václavík, T. Modelling species distributions with remote sensing data: Bridging disciplinary perspectives. J. Biogeogr. 40, 2226–2227 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
36.Jetz, W. et al. Monitoring plant functional diversity from space. Nat. Plants 2, 16024 (2016).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
37.Scherrer, D., D’Amen, M., Fernandes, R. F., Mateo, R. G. & Guisan, A. How to best threshold and validate stacked species assemblages? Community optimisation might hold the answer. Methods Ecol. Evol. 9, 2155–2166 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
38.Cavender-Bares, J. Diversification, adaptation, and community assembly of the American oaks (Quercus), a model clade for integrating ecology and evolution. New Phytol. 221, 669–692 (2019).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
39.Cavender-Bares, J., Ackerly, D. D., Baum, D. A. & Bazzaz, F. A. Phylogenetic overdispersion in Floridian oak communities. Am. Nat. 163, 823–843 (2004).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
40.Cavender-Bares, J. et al. The role of diversification in community assembly of the oaks (Quercus L.) across the continental U.S. Am. J. Bot. 105, 565–586 (2018).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
41.Colwell, R. K. & Rangel, T. F. Hutchinson’s duality: The once and future niche. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 106, 19651–19658 (2009).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
42.Townsend Peterson, A. et al. Ecological Niches and Geographic Distributions. (Princeton University Press, 2011). Book 

Google Scholar 
43.Cavender-Bares, J., Fontes, G. C. & Pinto-Ledezma, J. Open questions in understanding the adaptive significance of plant functional trait variation within a single lineage. New Phytol. https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.16652 (2020).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
44.Cavender-Bares, J., Kitajima, K. & Bazzaz, F. A. Multiple trait associations in relation to habitat differentiation among 17 Floridian oak species. Ecol. Monogr. 74, 635–662 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
45.Menges, E. S. & Hawkes, C. V. Interactive effects of fire and microhabitat on plants of Florida scrub. Ecol. Appl. 8, 935–946 (1998).Article 

Google Scholar 
46.Calabrese, J. M., Certain, G., Kraan, C. & Dormann, C. F. Stacking species distribution models and adjusting bias by linking them to macroecological models: Stacking species distribution models. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 23, 99–112 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
47.Hurlbert, A. H. & Jetz, W. Species richness, hotspots, and the scale dependence of range maps in ecology and conservation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 104, 13384–13389 (2007).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
48.Pinto-Ledezma, J. N., Jahn, A. E., Cueto, V. R., Diniz-Filho, J. A. F. & Villalobos, F. Drivers of phylogenetic assemblage structure of the Furnariides, a widespread clade of lowland neotropical birds. Am. Nat. 193, E41–E56 (2019).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
49.Gamon, J. A. et al. Consideration of scale in remote sensing of biodiversity. In Remote Sensing of Plant Biodiversity (eds. Cavender-Bares, J., Gamon, J. A. & Townsend, P. A.) 425–447 (Springer International Publishing, 2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-33157-3_16.50.Pollock, L. J. et al. Understanding co-occurrence by modelling species simultaneously with a Joint Species Distribution Model (JSDM). Methods Ecol. Evol. 5, 397–406 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
51.Ovaskainen, O. et al. How to make more out of community data? A conceptual framework and its implementation as models and software. Ecol. Lett. 20, 561–576 (2017).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
52.Ovaskainen, O. Joint Species Distribution Modelling: with Applications in R (Cambridge University Press, 2020).Book 

Google Scholar 
53.Poggiato, G. et al. On the interpretations of joint modeling in community ecology. Trends Ecol. Evol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2021.01.002 (2021).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
54.Wilkinson, D. P., Golding, N., Guillera-Arroita, G., Tingley, R. & McCarthy, M. A. Defining and evaluating predictions of joint species distribution models. Methods Ecol. Evol. 12, 394–404 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
55.Bystrova, D. et al. Clustering species with residual covariance matrix in joint species distribution models. Front. Ecol. Evol. 9, 601384 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
56.Mateo, R. G. et al. Hierarchical species distribution models in support of vegetation conservation at the landscape scale. J. Veg. Sci. 30, 386–396 (2019).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
57.Petitpierre, B. et al. Will climate change increase the risk of plant invasions into mountains?. Ecol. Appl. 26, 530–544 (2016).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
58.Cavender-Bares, J. et al. Harnessing plant spectra to integrate the biodiversity sciences across biological and spatial scales. Am. J. Bot. 104, 966–969 (2017).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
59.Schweiger, A. K. et al. Spectral Niches Reveal Taxonomic Identity and Complementarity in Plant Communities. (2020) https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.04.24.060483. 60.Cavender-Bares, J. et al. Associations of leaf spectra with genetic and phylogenetic variation in oaks: Prospects for remote detection of biodiversity. Remote Sens. 8, 221 (2016).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
61.Meireles, J. E. et al. Leaf reflectance spectra capture the evolutionary history of seed plants. New Phytol. 228, 485–493 (2020).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
62.Williams, L. J. et al. Remote spectral detection of biodiversity effects on forest biomass. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 5, 46–54 (2021).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
63.Alonso, K. et al. Data products, quality and validation of the DLR earth sensing imaging spectrometer (DESIS). Sensors 19, 4471 (2019).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
64.Stavros, E. N. et al. ISS observations offer insights into plant function. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 1, 0194 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
65.Féret, J.-B. & Asner, G. P. Mapping tropical forest canopy diversity using high-fidelity imaging spectroscopy. Ecol. Appl. 24, 1289–1296 (2014).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
66.Cavender-Bares, J. et al. BII-Implementation: The causes and consequences of plant biodiversity across scales in a rapidly changing world. Res. Ideas Outcomes 7, e63850 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
67.Hipp, A. L. et al. Sympatric parallel diversification of major oak clades in the Americas and the origins of Mexican species diversity. New Phytol. 217, 439–452 (2018).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
68.Cavender-Bares, J. et al. Phylogeny and biogeography of the American live oaks (Quercus subsection Virentes): A genomic and population genetics approach. Mol. Ecol. 24, 3668–3687 (2015).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
69.Aiello-Lammens, M. E., Boria, R. A., Radosavljevic, A., Vilela, B. & Anderson, R. P. spThin: An R package for spatial thinning of species occurrence records for use in ecological niche models. Ecography 38, 541–545 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
70.Lobo, J. M., Jiménez-Valverde, A. & Hortal, J. The uncertain nature of absences and their importance in species distribution modelling. Ecography 33, 103–114 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
71.Barnett, D. T. et al. The plant diversity sampling design for The National Ecological Observatory Network. Ecosphere 10, e02603 (2019).
Google Scholar 
72.Deblauwe, V. et al. Remotely sensed temperature and precipitation data improve species distribution modelling in the tropics: Remotely sensed climate data for tropical species distribution models. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 25, 443–454 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
73.Hijmans, R. J., Phillips, S., Leathwick, J. & Elith, J. dismo: Species Distribution Modeling. R package version 1.3. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=dismo (2020).74.Myneni, R. B. et al. Global products of vegetation leaf area and fraction absorbed PAR from year one of MODIS data. Remote Sens. Environ. 83, 214–231 (2002).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
75.Gower, S. T., Kucharik, C. J. & Norman, J. M. Direct and indirect estimation of leaf area index, fAPAR, and net primary production of terrestrial ecosystems. Remote Sens. Environ. 70, 29–51 (1999).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
76.Reich, P. B. Key canopy traits drive forest productivity. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 279, 2128–2134 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
77.Xiao, Z. et al. Use of general regression neural networks for generating the GLASS leaf area index product from time-series MODIS surface reflectance. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. 52, 209–223 (2014).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
78.Soberón, J. Grinnellian and Eltonian niches and geographic distributions of species. Ecol. Lett. 10, 1115–1123 (2007).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
79.Farr, T. G. et al. The shuttle radar topography mission. Rev. Geophys. 45, RG2004 (2007).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
80.Dubuis, A. et al. Predicting spatial patterns of plant species richness: A comparison of direct macroecological and species stacking modelling approaches: Predicting plant species richness. Divers. Distrib. 17, 1122–1131 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
81.Schoener, T. W. Anolis lizards of Bimini: Resource partition in a complex fauna. Ecology 49, 704–726 (1968).Article 

Google Scholar 
82.Barve, N. et al. The crucial role of the accessible area in ecological niche modeling and species distribution modeling. Ecol. Model. 222, 1810–1819 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
83.Cooper, J. C. & Soberón, J. Creating individual accessible area hypotheses improves stacked species distribution model performance. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 27, 156–165 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
84.Barbet-Massin, M., Jiguet, F., Albert, C. H. & Thuiller, W. Selecting pseudo-absences for species distribution models: How, where and how many? How to use pseudo-absences in niche modelling?. Methods Ecol. Evol. 3, 327–338 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
85.Carlson, C. J. et al. The global distribution of Bacillus anthracis and associated anthrax risk to humans, livestock and wildlife. Nat. Microbiol. 4, 1337–1343 (2019).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
86.Chipman, H. A., George, E. I. & McCulloch, R. E. BART: Bayesian additive regression trees. Ann. Appl. Stat. 4, 266–298 (2010).MathSciNet 
MATH 
Article 

Google Scholar 
87.Yen, J. D. L., Thomson, J. R., Vesk, P. A. & Mac Nally, R. To what are woodland birds responding? Inference on relative importance of in-site habitat variables using several ensemble habitat modelling techniques. Ecography 34, 946–954 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
88.Carlson, C. J. embarcadero: Species distribution modelling with Bayesian additive regression trees in r. Methods Ecol. Evol. 11, 850–858 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
89.Dorie, V. dbarts: Discrete Bayesian Additive Regression Trees Sampler. (2020).90.Hastie, T. & Tibshirani, R. Bayesian backfitting. Stat. Sci. 15(3), 196–223 (2000). MathSciNet 
MATH 
Article 

Google Scholar 
91.Allouche, O., Tsoar, A. & Kadmon, R. Assessing the accuracy of species distribution models: Prevalence, kappa and the true skill statistic (TSS): Assessing the accuracy of distribution models. J. Appl. Ecol. 43, 1223–1232 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
92.Di Cola, V. et al. ecospat: An R package to support spatial analyses and modeling of species niches and distributions. Ecography 40, 774–787 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
93.Hipp, A. L. et al. Genomic landscape of the global oak phylogeny. New Phytol. 226, 1198–1212 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
94.Webb, C. O., Ackerly, D. D., McPeek, M. A. & Donoghue, M. J. Phylogenies and community ecology. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 33, 475–505 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
95.Kembel, S. W. et al. Picante: R tools for integrating phylogenies and ecology. Bioinformatics 26, 1463–1464 (2010).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
96.Kruschke, J. Doing Bayesian Data Analysis, 2nd Ed. (2014).97.Mills, J. A. & Parent, O. Bayesian MCMC estimation. In Handbook of Regional Science (eds Fischer, M. M. & Nijkamp, P.) 1571–1595 (Springer, Berlin, 2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-23430-9_89.Chapter 

Google Scholar 
98.Carpenter, B. et al. Stan : A probabilistic programming language. J. Stat. Softw. 76, 1–32 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
99.Goodrich, B., Gabry, J., Ali, I. & Brilleman, S. rstanarm: Bayesian applied regression modeling via Stan. (2020).100.Bürkner, P.-C. brms: An R package for Bayesian multilevel models using Stan. J. Stat. Softw. 80, 1–28 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
101.Makowski, D., Ben-Shachar, M. & Lüdecke, D. bayestestR: Describing effects and their uncertainty, existence and significance within the Bayesian framework. J. Open Source Softw. 4, 1541 (2019).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar  More