Philippa Kaur

1.D’Hondt S, Jørgensen BB, Miller DJ, Batzke A, Blake R, Cragg BA, et al. Distributions of microbial activities in deep subseafloor sediments. Science. 2004;306:2216–21.PubMed 
Article 
CAS 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
2.Froelich PN, Klinkhammer GP, Bender ML, Luedtke NA, Heath GR, Cullen D, et al. Early oxidation of organic matter in pelagic sediments of the eastern equatorial Atlantic: suboxic diagenesis. Geochim Cosmochim Acta. 1979;43:1075–90.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
3.Parkes RJ, Cragg B, Roussel E, Webster G, Weightman A, Sass H. A review of prokaryotic populations and processes in sub-seafloor sediments, including biosphere: geosphere interactions. Mar Geol. 2014;352:409–25.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
4.Arnosti C. Microbial extracellular enzymes and the marine carbon cycle. Annu Rev Mar Sci. 2011;3:401–25.Article 

Google Scholar 
5.Thamdrup B, Rosselló-Mora R, Amann R. Microbial manganese and sulfate reduction in Black Sea shelf sediments. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2000;66:2888–97.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
6.Thamdrup B. Bacterial manganese and iron reduction in aquatic sediments. In: Schink B, editor. Advances in microbial ecology. Boston, MA, US: Springer; 2000. p. 41–84.7.Jørgensen BB, Kasten S. Sulfur cycling and methane oxidation. In: Schulz HD, Zabel M, editors. Marine geochemistry. 2nd ed. Berlin, Heidelberg, Germany: Springer-Verlag; 2006. p. 271–309.8.Bowles MW, Mogollón JM, Kasten S, Zabel M, Hinrichs K-U. Global rates of marine sulfate reduction and implications for sub–sea-floor metabolic activities. Science. 2014;344:889–91.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
9.Jickells TD, An ZS, Andersen KK, Baker AR, Bergametti G, Brooks N, et al. Global iron connections between desert dust, ocean biogeochemistry, and climate. Science. 2005;308:67–71.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
10.Raiswell R, Hawkings JR, Benning LG, Baker AR, Death R, Albani S, et al. Potentially bioavailable iron delivery by iceberg-hosted sediments and atmospheric dust to the polar oceans. Biogeosciences. 2016;13:3887–900.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
11.Hawkings JR, Wadham JL, Tranter M, Raiswell R, Benning LG, Statham PJ, et al. Ice sheets as a significant source of highly reactive nanoparticulate iron to the oceans. Nat Commun. 2014;5:3929.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
12.Death R, Wadham JL, Monteiro F, Le Brocq AM, Tranter M, Ridgwell A, et al. Antarctic ice sheet fertilises the Southern Ocean. Biogeosciences. 2014;11:2635–43.Article 

Google Scholar 
13.Monien D, Monien P, Brünjes R, Widmer T, Kappenberg A, Silva Busso AA, et al. Meltwater as a source of potentially bioavailable iron to Antarctica waters. Antarct Sci. 2017;29:277–91.Article 

Google Scholar 
14.Henkel S, Kasten S, Hartmann JF, Silva-Busso A, Staubwasser M. Iron cycling and stable Fe isotope fractionation in Antarctic shelf sediments, King George Island. Geochim Cosmochim Acta. 2018;237:320–38.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
15.Hodson A, Nowak A, Sabacka M, Jungblut A, Navarro F, Pearce D, et al. Climatically sensitive transfer of iron to maritime Antarctic ecosystems by surface runoff. Nat Commun. 2017;8:14499.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
16.Wang S, Bailey D, Lindsay K, Moore JK, Holland M. Impact of sea ice on the marine iron cycle and phytoplankton productivity. Biogeosciences. 2014;11:4713–31.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
17.Jørgensen BB, Findlay AJ, Pellerin A. The biogeochemical sulfur cycle of marine sediments. Front Microbiol. 2019;10:849.PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
18.Findlay AJ, Kamyshny A. Turnover rates of intermediate sulfur species (Sx2−, S0, S2O32−, S4O62−, SO32−) in anoxic freshwater and sediments. Front Microbiol. 2017;8:2551.19.Findlay AJ, Pellerin A, Laufer K, Jørgensen BB. Quantification of sulphide oxidation rates in marine sediment. Geochim Cosmochim Acta. 2020;280:441–52.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
20.Canfield DE, Jørgensen BB, Fossing H, Glud R, Gundersen J, Ramsing NB, et al. Pathways of organic carbon oxidation in three continental margin sediments. Mar Geol. 1993;113:27–40.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
21.Michaud AB, Laufer K, Findlay A, Pellerin A, Antler G, Turchyn AV, et al. Glacial influence on the iron and sulfur cycles in Arctic fjord sediments (Svalbard). Geochim Cosmochim Acta. 2020;280:423–40.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
22.Jensen MM, Thamdrup B, Rysgaard S, Holmer M, Fossing H. Rates and regulation of microbial iron reduction in sediments of the Baltic-North Sea transition. Biogeochemistry. 2003;65:295–317.Article 

Google Scholar 
23.Beckler JS, Kiriazis N, Rabouille C, Stewart FJ, Taillefert M. Importance of microbial iron reduction in deep sediments of river-dominated continental-margins. Mar Chem. 2016;178:22–34.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
24.Riedinger N, Brunner B, Krastel S, Arnold GL, Wehrmann LM, Formolo MJ, et al. Sulfur cycling in an iron oxide-dominated, dynamic marine depositional system: the Argentine Continental Margin. Front Earth Sci. 2017;5:33.Article 

Google Scholar 
25.Thamdrup B, Fossing H, Jørgensen BB. Manganese, iron and sulfur cycling in a coastal marine sediment, Aarhus Bay, Denmark. Geochim Cosmochim Acta. 1994;58:5115–29.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
26.Arndt S, Jørgensen BB, LaRowe DE, Middelburg J, Pancost R, Regnier P. Quantifying the degradation of organic matter in marine sediments: a review and synthesis. Earth-Sci Rev. 2013;123:53–86.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
27.Algora C, Vasileiadis S, Wasmund K, Trevisan M, Krüger M, Puglisi E, et al. Manganese and iron as structuring parameters of microbial communities in Arctic marine sediments from the Baffin Bay. FEMS Microbiol Ecol. 2015;91:fiv056.PubMed 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
28.Franco M, De Mesel I, Diallo MD, Van Der Gucht K, Van Gansbeke D, Van, et al. Effect of phytoplankton bloom deposition on benthic bacterial communities in two contrasting sediments in the southern North Sea. Aquat Micro Ecol. 2007;48:241–54.Article 

Google Scholar 
29.Zonneveld KAF, Versteegh GJM, Kasten S, Eglinton TI, Emeis K-C, Huguet C, et al. Selective preservation of organic matter in marine environments; processes and impact on the sedimentary record. Biogeosciences. 2010;7:483–511.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
30.Jorgensen SL, Hannisdal B, Lanzén A, Baumberger T, Flesland K, Fonseca R, et al. Correlating microbial community profiles with geochemical data in highly stratified sediments from the Arctic Mid-Ocean Ridge. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2012;109:E2846–55.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
31.Zinke LA, Glombitza C, Bird JT, Røy H, Jørgensen BB, Lloyd KG, et al. Microbial organic matter degradation potential in Baltic Sea sediments is influenced by depositional conditions and in situ geochemistry. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2019;85:e02164-18.PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
32.Yang J, Jiang H, Wu G, Dong H. Salinity shapes microbial diversity and community structure in surface sediments of the Qinghai-Tibetan Lakes. Sci Rep. 2016;6:25078.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
33.Hicks N, Liu X, Gregory R, Kenny J, Lucaci A, Lenzi L, et al. Temperature driven changes in benthic bacterial diversity influences biogeochemical cycling in coastal sediments. Front Microbiol. 2018;9:1730.PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
34.Hamdan LJ, Coffin RB, Sikaroodi M, Greinert J, Treude T, Gillevet PM. Ocean currents shape the microbiome of Arctic marine sediments. ISME J. 2013;7:685–96.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
35.Schulz HD, Zabel M, editors. Marine geochemistry. 2nd ed. Berlin, Heidelberg, Germany: Springer-Verlag; 2006.36.Geprägs P, Torres ME, Mau S, Kasten S, Römer M, Bohrmann G. Carbon cycling fed by methane seepage at the shallow Cumberland Bay, South Georgia, sub-Antarctic. Geochem, Geophys Geosystems. 2016;17:1401–18.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
37.Atkinson A, Whitehouse MJ, Priddle J, Cripps GC, Ward P, Brandon MA. South Georgia, Antarctica: a productive, cold water, pelagic ecosystem. Mar Ecol Prog Ser. 2001;216:279–308.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
38.Löffler B. Geochemische Prozesse und Stoffkreisläufe in Sedimenten innerhalb und außerhalb des Cumberland-Bay Fjordes, Süd Georgien. Bachelor Thesis. Bremen, Germany: University of Bremen; 2013.39.Köster M. (Bio-)geochemische Prozesse in den eisenreichen Seep-Sedimenten der Cumberland-Bucht Südgeorgiens, Subantarktis. Bachelor Thesis. Bremen, Germany: University of Bremen; 2014.40.Römer M, Torres M, Kasten S, Kuhn G, Graham AG, Mau S, et al. First evidence of widespread active methane seepage in the Southern Ocean, off the sub-Antarctic island of South Georgia. Earth Planet Sci Lett. 2014;403:166–77.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
41.Bohrmann G, Aromokeye AD, Bihler V, Dehning K, Dohrmann I, Gentz T, et al. R/V METEOR Cruise Report M134, emissions of free gas from cross-shelf troughs of South Georgia: distribution, quantification, and sources for methane ebullition sites in sub-Antarctic waters, Port Stanley (Falkland Islands)—Punta Arenas (Chile), 16 January–18 February 2017. 2017.42.Schnakenberg A, Aromokeye DA, Kulkarni A, Maier L, Wunder LC, Richter-Heitmann T, et al. Electron acceptor availability shapes Anaerobically Methane Oxidizing Archaea (ANME) communities in South Georgia sediments. Front Microbiol. 2021;12:726.Article 

Google Scholar 
43.Rückamp M, Braun M, Suckro S, Blindow N. Observed glacial changes on the King George Island ice cap, Antarctica, in the last decade. Global Planet Change. 2011;79:99–109.44.Seeberg-Elverfeldt J, Schlüter M, Feseker T, Kölling M. Rhizon sampling of porewaters near the sediment-water interface of aquatic systems. Limnol Oceanogr Methods. 2005;3:361–71.Article 

Google Scholar 
45.Oni OE, Miyatake T, Kasten S, Richter-Heitmann T, Fischer D, Wagenknecht L, et al. Distinct microbial populations are tightly linked to the profile of dissolved iron in the methanic sediments of the Helgoland mud area, North Sea. Front Microbiol. 2015;6:365.PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
46.Aromokeye DA, Richter-Heitmann T, Oni OE, Kulkarni A, Yin X, Kasten S, et al. Temperature controls crystalline iron oxide utilization by microbial communities in methanic ferruginous marine sediment incubations. Front Microbiol. 2018;9:2574.PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
47.Parada AE, Needham DM, Fuhrman JA. Every base matters: assessing small subunit rRNA primers for marine microbiomes with mock communities, time series and global field samples. Environ Microbiol. 2016;18:1403–14.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
48.Herlemann DPR, Labrenz M, Jürgens K, Bertilsson S, Waniek JJ, Andersson AF. Transitions in bacterial communities along the 2000 km salinity gradient of the Baltic Sea. ISME J. 2011;5:1571–9.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
49.Ovreås L, Forney L, Daae FL, Torsvik V. Distribution of bacterioplankton in meromictic Lake Saelenvannet, as determined by denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis of PCR-amplified gene fragments coding for 16S rRNA. Appl Environ Microbiol. 1997;63:3367–73.PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
50.Takai K, Horikoshi K. Rapid detection and quantification of members of the archaeal community by quantitative PCR using fluorogenic probes. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2000;66:5066–72.51.Viollier E, Inglett P, Hunter K, Roychoudhury A, Van Cappellen P. The ferrozine method revisited: Fe(II)/Fe(III) determination in natural waters. Appl Geochem. 2000;15:785–90.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
52.Yin X, Kulkarni AC, Friedrich MW. DNA and RNA stable isotope probing of methylotrophic methanogenic Archaea. In: Dumont MG, Hernández García M, editors. Stable isotope probing: methods and protocols. New York, NY: Springer; 2019. p. 189–206.53.Aromokeye DA, Kulkarni AC, Elvert M, Wegener G, Henkel S, Coffinet S, et al. Rates and microbial players of iron-driven anaerobic oxidation of methane in methanic marine sediments. Front Microbiol. 2020;10:3041.PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
54.Eden PA, Schmidt TM, Blakemore RP, Pace NR. Phylogenetic analysis of Aquaspirillum magnetotacticum using polymerase chain reaction-amplified 16S rRNA-specific DNA. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 1991;41:324–5.CAS 

Google Scholar 
55.Yu Y, Lee C, Kim J, Hwang S. Group-specific primer and probe sets to detect methanogenic communities using quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction. Biotechnol Bioeng. 2005;89:670–9.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
56.Lueders T, Friedrich MW. Effects of amendment with ferrihydrite and gypsum on the structure and activity of methanogenic populations in rice field soil. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2002;68:2484–94.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
57.Lane DJ. 16S/23S rRNA sequencing. In: Stackebrandt E, Goodfellow M, editors. Nucleic acid techniques in bacterial systematics. New York: John Wiley and Sons; 1991. p. 115–75.58.Großkopf R, Janssen PH, Liesack W. Diversity and structure of the methanogenic community in anoxic rice paddy soil microcosms as examined by cultivation and direct 16S rRNA gene sequence retrieval. Appl Environ Microbiol. 1998;64:960–9.59.Reyes C, Schneider D, Thürmer A, Kulkarni A, Lipka M, Sztejrenszus SY, et al. Potentially active iron, sulfur, and sulfate reducing bacteria in Skagerrak and Bothnian Bay sediments. Geomicrobiol J. 2017;34:840–50.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
60.Kondo R, Nedwell DB, Purdy KJ, Silva SQ. Detection and enumeration of sulphate-reducing Bacteria in estuarine sediments by competitive PCR. Geomicrobiol J. 2004;21:145–57.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
61.Benjamini Y, Yekutieli D. The control of the false discovery rate in multiple testing under dependency. Ann Stat. 2001;29:1165–88.Article 

Google Scholar 
62.R Core Team. R: a language and environment for statistical computing, 3.6.1. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2019. Available from: https://www.R-project.org.63.Oksanen J, Blanchet FG, Friendly M, Kindt R, Legendre P, McGlinn D, et al. vegan: Community Ecology Package, 2.5-6. 2019. Available from: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=vegan.64.Quast C, Pruesse E, Yilmaz P, Gerken J, Schweer T, Yarza P, et al. The SILVA ribosomal RNA gene database project: improved data processing and web-based tools. Nucleic Acids Res. 2012;41:D590–6.PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
65.Stamatakis A. RAxML version 8: a tool for phylogenetic analysis and post-analysis of large phylogenies. Bioinformatics. 2014;30:1312–3.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
66.Letunic I, Bork P. Interactive Tree Of Life (iTOL) v4: recent updates and new developments. Nucleic Acids Res. 2019;47:W256–9.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
67.Inkscape Team. Inkscape, 1.0.1. 2020. Available from: https://inkscape.org.68.Sun H, Spring S, Lapidus A, Davenport K, Glavina Del Rio T, Tice H, et al. Complete genome sequence of Desulfarculus baarsii type strain (2st14T). Stand Genom Sci. 2010;3:276–84.Article 

Google Scholar 
69.Kümmel S, Herbst F-A, Bahr A, Duarte M, Pieper DH, Jehmlich N, et al. Anaerobic naphthalene degradation by sulfate-reducing Desulfobacteraceae from various anoxic aquifers. FEMS Microbiol Ecol. 2015;91:fiv006.70.Belyakova EV, Rozanova EP, Borzenkov IA, Tourova TP, Pusheva MA, Lysenko AM, et al. The new facultatively chemolithoautotrophic, moderately halophilic, sulfate-reducing bacterium Desulfovermiculus halophilus gen. nov., sp. nov., isolated from an oil field. Microbiology. 2006;75:161–71.71.Rezadehbashi M, Baldwin SA. Core sulphate-reducing microorganisms in metal-removing semi-passive biochemical reactors and the co-occurrence of methanogens. Microorganisms. 2018;6:16.PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
72.Sheik CS, Jain S, Dick GJ. Metabolic flexibility of enigmatic SAR324 revealed through metagenomics and metatranscriptomics. Environ Microbiol. 2014;16:304–17.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
73.Sorokin DY, Chernyh NA. ‘Candidatus Desulfonatronobulbus propionicus’: a first haloalkaliphilic member of the order Syntrophobacterales from soda lakes. Extremophiles. 2016;20:895–901.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
74.Lovley DR, Giovannoni SJ, White DC, Champine JE, Phillips E, Gorby YA, et al. Geobacter metallireducens gen. nov. sp. nov., a microorganism capable of coupling the complete oxidation of organic compounds to the reduction of iron and other metals. Arch Microbiol. 1993;159:336–44.75.Roden EE, Lovley DR. Dissimilatory Fe(III) reduction by the marine microorganism Desulfuromonas acetoxidans. Appl Environ Microbiol. 1993;59:734–42.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
76.Lovley DR, Coates JD, Saffarini DA, Lonergan DJ. Dissimilatory iron reduction. In: Winkelmann G, Carrano CJ, editors. Transition metals in microbial metabolism. Amsterdam: Harwood Academic Publishers; 1997. p. 187–215.77.Vandieken V, Finke N, Jørgensen BB. Pathways of carbon oxidation in an Arctic fjord sediment (Svalbard) and isolation of psychrophilic and psychrotolerant Fe(III)-reducing bacteria. Mar Ecol Prog Ser. 2006;322:29–41.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
78.Vandieken V, Thamdrup B. Identification of acetate-oxidizing bacteria in a coastal marine surface sediment by RNA-stable isotope probing in anoxic slurries and intact cores. FEMS Microbiol Ecol. 2013;84:373–86.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
79.Hori T, Aoyagi T, Itoh H, Narihiro T, Oikawa A, Suzuki K, et al. Isolation of microorganisms involved in reduction of crystalline iron(III) oxides in natural environments. Front Microbiol. 2015;6:386.PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
80.Vandieken V, Mußmann M, Niemann H, Jørgensen BB. Desulfuromonas svalbardensis sp. nov. and Desulfuromusa ferrireducens sp. nov., psychrophilic, Fe(III)-reducing bacteria isolated from Arctic sediments, Svalbard. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2006;56:1133–9.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
81.Slobodkina GB, Reysenbach A-L, Panteleeva AN, Kostrikina NA, Wagner ID, Bonch-Osmolovskaya EA, et al. Deferrisoma camini gen. nov., sp. nov., a moderately thermophilic, dissimilatory iron(III)-reducing bacterium from a deep-sea hydrothermal vent that forms a distinct phylogenetic branch in the Deltaproteobacteria. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2012;62:2463–8.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
82.Tu T-H, Wu L-W, Lin Y-S, Imachi H, Lin L-H, Wang P-L. Microbial community composition and functional capacity in a terrestrial ferruginous, sulfate-depleted mud volcano. Front Microbiol. 2017;8:2137.PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
83.Lovley DR, Roden EE, Phillips EJP, Woodward JC. Enzymatic iron and uranium reduction by sulfate-reducing bacteria. Mar Geol. 1993;113:41–53.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
84.Bale SJ, Goodman K, Rochelle PA, Marchesi JR, Fry JC, Weightman AJ, et al. Desulfovibrio profundus sp. nov., a novel barophilic sulfate-reducing Bacterium from deep sediment layers in the Japan Sea. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 1997;47:515–21.85.Treude N, Rosencrantz D, Liesack W, Schnell S. Strain FAc12, a dissimilatory iron-reducing member of the Anaeromyxobacter subgroup of Myxococcales. FEMS Microbiol Ecol. 2003;44:261–9.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
86.Hori T, Müller A, Igarashi Y, Conrad R, Friedrich MW. Identification of iron-reducing microorganisms in anoxic rice paddy soil by 13C-acetate probing. ISME J. 2010;4:267–78.87.Han Y, Perner M. The globally widespread genus Sulfurimonas: versatile energy metabolisms and adaptations to redox clines. Front Microbiol. 2015;6:989.PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
88.Roalkvam I, Drønen K, Stokke R, Daae FL, Dahle H, Steen IH. Physiological and genomic characterization of Arcobacter anaerophilus IR-1 reveals new metabolic features in Epsilonproteobacteria. Front Microbiol. 2015;6:987.PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
89.Schlosser C, Schmidt K, Aquilina A, Homoky WB, Castrillejo M, Mills RA, et al. Mechanisms of dissolved and labile particulate iron supply to shelf waters and phytoplankton blooms off South Georgia, Southern Ocean. Biogeosciences. 2018;15:4973–93.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
90.Sahade R, Lagger C, Torre L, Momo F, Monien P, Schloss I, et al. Climate change and glacier retreat drive shifts in an Antarctic benthic ecosystem. Sci Adv. 2015;1:e1500050.PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
91.Petro C, Starnawski P, Schramm A, Kjeldsen KU. Microbial community assembly in marine sediments. Aquat Micro Ecol. 2017;79:177–95.Article 

Google Scholar 
92.Petro C, Zäncker B, Starnawski P, Jochum LM, Ferdelman TG, Jørgensen BB, et al. Marine deep biosphere microbial communities assemble in near-surface sediments in Aarhus Bay. Front Microbiol. 2019;10:758.PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
93.Starnawski P, Bataillon T, Ettema TJ, Jochum LM, Schreiber L, Chen X, et al. Microbial community assembly and evolution in subseafloor sediment. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2017;114:2940–5.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
94.Marshall IPG, Ren G, Jaussi M, Lomstein BA, Jørgensen BB, Røy H, et al. Environmental filtering determines family-level structure of sulfate-reducing microbial communities in subsurface marine sediments. ISME J. 2019;13:1920–32.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
95.Berner RA. Early diagenesis: a theoretical approach. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press; 1980.96.Cottrell MT, Kirchman DL. Natural assemblages of marine Proteobacteria and members of the Cytophaga-Flavobacter cluster consuming low- and high-molecular-weight dissolved organic matter. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2000;66:1692–7.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
97.Bissett A, Bowman JP, Burke CM. Flavobacterial response to organic pollution. Aquat Micro Ecol. 2008;51:31–43.Article 

Google Scholar 
98.Martinez-Garcia M, Brazel DM, Swan BK, Arnosti C, Chain PSG, Reitenga KG, et al. Capturing single cell genomes of active polysaccharide degraders: an unexpected contribution of Verrucomicrobia. PLoS ONE. 2012;7:e35314.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
99.Sabree ZL, Kambhampati S, Moran NA. Nitrogen recycling and nutritional provisioning by Blattabacterium, the cockroach endosymbiont. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2009;106:19521–6.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
100.Bowman JP, McCuaig RD. Biodiversity, community structural shifts, and biogeography of Prokaryotes within Antarctic continental shelf sediment. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2003;69:2463–83.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
101.Blazejak A, Schippers A. High abundance of JS-1- and Chloroflexi-related Bacteria in deeply buried marine sediments revealed by quantitative, real-time PCR. FEMS Microbiol Ecol. 2010;72:198–207.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
102.Yamada T, Sekiguchi Y, Hanada S, Imachi H, Ohashi A, Harada H, et al. Anaerolinea thermolimosa sp. nov., Levilinea saccharolytica gen. nov., sp. nov. and Leptolinea tardivitalis gen. nov., sp. nov., novel filamentous anaerobes, and description of the new classes Anaerolineae classis nov. and Caldilineae classis nov. in the bacterial phylum Chloroflexi. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2006;56:1331–40.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
103.Storesund JE, Øvreås L. Diversity of Planctomycetes in iron-hydroxide deposits from the Arctic Mid Ocean Ridge (AMOR) and description of Bythopirellula goksoyri gen. nov., sp. nov., a novel Planctomycete from deep sea iron-hydroxide deposits. Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek. 2013;104:569–84.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
104.Kovaleva OL, Merkel AY, Novikov AA, Baslerov RV, Toshchakov SV, Bonch-Osmolovskaya EA. Tepidisphaera mucosa gen. nov., sp. nov., a moderately thermophilic member of the class Phycisphaerae in the phylum Planctomycetes, and proposal of a new family, Tepidisphaeraceae fam. nov., and a new order, Tepidisphaerales ord. nov. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2015;65:549–55.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
105.Borrione I, Schlitzer R. Distribution and recurrence of phytoplankton blooms around South Georgia, Southern Ocean. Biogeosciences. 2013;10:217–31.Article 

Google Scholar 
106.Pfennig N, Biebl H. Desulfuromonas acetoxidans gen. nov. and sp. nov., a new anaerobic, sulfur-reducing, acetate-oxidizing bacterium. Arch Microbiol. 1976;110:3–12.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
107.Finster K, Bak F, Pfennig N. Desulfuromonas acetexigens sp. nov., a dissimilatory sulfur-reducing eubacterium from anoxic freshwater sediments. Arch Microbiol. 1994;161:328–32.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
108.Lovley DR, Phillips EJP, Lonergan DJ, Widman PK. Fe(III) and S0 reduction by Pelobacter carbinolicus. Appl Environ Microbiol. 1995;61:2132–8.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
109.An TT, Picardal FW. Desulfuromonas carbonis sp. nov., an Fe(III)-, S0- and Mn(IV)-reducing bacterium isolated from an active coalbed methane gas well. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2015;65:1686–93.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
110.Pjevac P, Kamyshny A Jr, Dyksma S, Mußmann M. Microbial consumption of zero-valence sulfur in marine benthic habitats. Environ Microbiol. 2014;16:3416–30.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
111.Miao Z-Y, He H, Tan T, Zhang T, Tang J-L, Yang Y-C, et al. Biotreatment of Mn2+ and Pb2+ with sulfate-reducing bacterium Desulfuromonas alkenivorans S-7. J Environ Eng. 2018;144:04017116.Article 

Google Scholar 
112.Buongiorno J, Herbert L, Wehrmann L, Michaud A, Laufer K, Røy H, et al. Complex microbial communities drive iron and sulfur cycling in Arctic fjord sediments. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2019;85:e00949-19.PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
113.Zhang H, Liu F, Zheng S, Chen L, Zhang X, Gong J. The differentiation of iron-reducing bacterial community and iron-reduction activity between riverine and marine sediments in the Yellow River estuary. Mar Life Sci Technol. 2020;2:87–96.Article 

Google Scholar 
114.Ravenschlag K, Sahm K, Pernthaler J, Amann R. High bacterial diversity in permanently cold marine sediments. Appl Environ Microbiol. 1999;65:3982–9.115.Kashefi K, Holmes DE, Baross JA, Lovley DR. Thermophily in the Geobacteraceae: Geothermobacter ehrlichii gen. nov., sp. nov., a novel thermophilic member of the Geobacteraceae from the “Bag City” hydrothermal vent. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2003;69:2985–93.116.Holmes DE, Nicoll JS, Bond DR, Lovley DR. Potential role of a novel psychrotolerant member of the family Geobacteraceae, Geopsychrobacter electrodiphilus gen. nov., sp. nov., in electricity production by a marine sediment fuel cell. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2004;70:6023–30.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
117.Jørgensen BB. Mineralization of organic matter in the sea bed—the role of sulphate reduction. Nature. 1982;296:643–5.Article 

Google Scholar 
118.Bryant M, Campbell LL, Reddy C, Crabill M. Growth of Desulfovibrio in lactate or ethanol media low in sulfate in association with H2-utilizing methanogenic bacteria. Appl Environ Microbiol. 1977;33:1162–9.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
119.Muyzer G, Stams AJ. The ecology and biotechnology of sulphate-reducing bacteria. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2008;6:441–54.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
120.Dalsgaard T, Bak F. Nitrate reduction in a sulfate-reducing bacterium, Desulfovibrio desulfuricans, isolated from rice paddy soil: sulfide inhibition, kinetics, and regulation. Appl Environ Microbiol. 1994;60:291–7.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
121.Holmes DE, Bond DR, Lovley DR. Electron transfer by Desulfobulbus propionicus to Fe (III) and graphite electrodes. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2004;70:1234–7.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
122.Lovley DR, Phillips EJP. Competitive mechanisms for inhibition of sulfate reduction and methane production in the zone of ferric iron reduction in sediments. Appl Environ Microbiol. 1987;53:2636–41.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
123.Finke N, Vandieken V, Jørgensen BB. Acetate, lactate, propionate, and isobutyrate as electron donors for iron and sulfate reduction in Arctic marine sediments, Svalbard. FEMS Microbiol Ecol. 2007;59:10–22.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
124.Canfield DE, Thamdrup B, Hansen JW. The anaerobic degradation of organic matter in Danish coastal sediments: iron reduction, manganese reduction, and sulfate reduction. Geochim Cosmochim Acta. 1993;57:3867–83.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
125.Jørgensen BB. The sulfur cycle of a coastal marine sediment (Limfjorden, Denmark). Limnol Oceanogr. 1977;22:814–32.Article 

Google Scholar 
126.Jørgensen BB, Laufer K, Michaud AB, Wehrmann LM. Biogeochemistry and microbiology of high Arctic marine sediment ecosystems—case study of Svalbard fjords. Limnol Oceanogr. 2021;66:S273–92.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
127.Laufer K, Michaud AB, Røy H, Jørgensen BB. Reactivity of iron minerals in the seabed toward microbial reduction—a comparison of different extraction techniques. Geomicrobiol J. 2020;37:170–89.Article 

Google Scholar 
128.Holmkvist L, Ferdelman TG, Jørgensen BB. A cryptic sulfur cycle driven by iron in the methane zone of marine sediment (Aarhus Bay, Denmark). Geochim Cosmochim Acta. 2011;75:3581–99.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
129.Riedinger N, Brunner B, Formolo MJ, Solomon E, Kasten S, Strasser M, et al. Oxidative sulfur cycling in the deep biosphere of the Nankai Trough, Japan. Geology. 2010;38:851–4.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar  More

1.Lackner S, Gilbert EM, Vlaeminck SE, Joss A, Horn H, van Loosdrecht MCM. Full-scale partial nitritation/anammox experience – an application survey. Water Res. 2014;55:292–303.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
2.Ali M, Okabe S. Anammox-based technologies for nitrogen removal: Advances in process start-up and remaining issues. Chemosphere. 2015;141:144–53.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
3.Ni S, Sung S, Yue Q, Gao B. Substrate removal evaluation of granular anammox process in a pilot-scale upflow anaerobic sludge blanket reactor. Ecol Eng 2012;38:30–36.Article 

Google Scholar 
4.Wang B, Peng Y, Guo Y, Yuan Y, Zhao M, Wang S. Impact of partial nitritation degree and C/N ratio on simultaneous sludge fermentation, denitrification and anammox process. Bioresour Technol. 2016;219:411–9.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
5.Zhang L, Narita Y, Gao L, Ali M, Oshiki M, Okabe S. Maximum specific growth rate of anammox bacteria revisited. Water Res. 2017;116:296–303.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
6.Zhang L, Okabe S. Ecological niche differentiation among anammox bacteria. Water Res. 2020;171:115468.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
7.Sun W, Xu MY, Wu WM, Guo J, Xia CY, Sun GP, et al. Molecular diversity and distribution of anammox community in sediments of the Dongjiang River, a drinking water source of Hong Kong. J Appl Microbiol. 2014;116:464–76.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
8.Zhu GB, Wang SY, Wang WD, Wang Y, Zhou LL, Jiang B, et al. Hotspots of anaerobic ammonium oxidation at land-freshwater interfaces. Nat Geosci. 2013;6:103–7.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
9.Kuypers MMM, Lavik G, Woebken D, Schmid M, Fuchs BM, Amann R, et al. Massive nitrogen loss from the Benguela upwelling system through anaerobic ammonium oxidation. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2005;102:6478–83.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
10.Schmid M, Risgaard-Petersen N, van de Vossenberg J, Kuypers MMM, Lavik G, Petersen J, et al. Anaerobic ammonium-oxidizing bacteria in marine environments: widespread occurrence but low diversity. Environ Microbiol. 2007;9:1476–84.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
11.Dalsgaard T, Canfield DE, Petersen J, Thamdrup B, Acuña-González J. N2 production by the anammox reaction in the anoxic water column of Golfo Dulce, Costa Rica. Nature. 2003;422:606–8.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
12.Kuypers MMM, Olav Sliekers A, Lavik G, Schmid M, Jørgensen BB, Gijs Kuenen J, et al. Anaerobic ammonium oxidation by anammox bacteria in the Black Sea. Nature. 2003;422:608–11.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
13.Humbert S, Tarnawski S, Fromin N, Mallet MP, Aragno M, Zopfi J. Molecular detection of anammox bacteria in terrestrial ecosystems: distribution and diversity. ISME J. 2010;4:450–4.PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
14.Zhu GB, Wang SY, Wang Y, Wang CX, Risgaard-Petersen N, Jetten MSM, et al. Anaerobic ammonia oxidation in a fertilized paddy soil. ISME J. 2011;5:1905–12.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
15.Oshiki M, Satoh H, Okabe S. Ecology and physiology of anaerobic ammonium oxidizing bacteria. Environ Microbiol. 2016;18:2784–96.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
16.Sonthiphand P, Hall MW, Neufeld JD. Biogeography of anaerobic ammonia-oxidizing (anammox) bacteria. Front Microbiol. 2014;5:1–14.Article 

Google Scholar 
17.van Bodegom P. Microbial maintenance: A critical review on its quantification. Microb Ecol. 2007;53:513–23.PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
18.Wang G, Post WM. A theoretical reassessment of microbial maintenance and implications for microbial ecology modeling. FEMS Microbiol Ecol. 2012;81:610–7.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
19.Overkamp W, Ercan O, Herber M, van Maris AJA, Kleerebezem M, Kuipers OP. Physiological and cell morphology adaptation of Bacillus subtilis at near-zero specific growth rates: a transcriptome analysis. Environ Microbiol. 2015;17:346–63.PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
20.Ma X, Wang Y, Zhou S, Yan Y, Lin X, Wu M. Endogenous metabolism of anaerobic ammonium oxidizing bacteria in response to short-term anaerobic and anoxic starvation stress. Chem Eng J. 2017;313:1233–41.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
21.Ma X, Wang Y. Anammox bacteria exhibit capacity to withstand long-term starvation stress: a proteomic-based investigation of survival mechanisms. Chemosphere. 2018;211:952–61.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
22.Xing B-S, Guo Q, Jiang X-Y, Chen Q-Q, He M-M, Wu L-M, et al. Long-term starvation and subsequent reactivation of anaerobic ammonium oxidation (anammox) granules. Chem Eng J. 2016;287:575–84.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
23.Wang Q, Song K, Hao X, Wei J, Pijuan M, van Loosdrecht MCM, et al. Evaluating death and activity decay of Anammox bacteria during anaerobic and aerobic starvation. Chemosphere. 2018;201:25–31.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
24.Lopez C, Pons MN, Morgenroth E. Endogenous processes during long-term starvation in activated sludge performing enhanced biological phosphorous removal. Water Res. 2006;40:1519–30.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
25.Tappe W, Laverman A, Bohland M, Braster M, Rittershaus S, Groeneweg J, et al. Maintenance energy demand and starvation recovery dynamics of Nitrosomonas europaea and Nitrobacter winogradskyi cultivated in a retentostat with complete biomass retention. Appl Environ Microbiol. 1999;65:2471–7.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
26.Vos T, Hakkaart XDV, de Hulster EAF, van Maris AJA, Pronk JT, Daran-Lapujade P. Maintenance-energy requirements and robustness of Saccharomyces cerevisiae at aerobic near-zero specific growth rates. Micro Cell Fact. 2016;15:111.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
27.Ali M, Oshiki M, Awata T, Isobe K, Kimura Z, Yoshiaki H, et al. Physiological characterization of anaerobic ammonium oxidizing bacterium “Candidatus Jettenia caeni”. Environ Microbiol. 2015;17:2172–89.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
28.Narita Y, Zhang L, Kimura, Ali M, Fujii T, Okabe S. Enrichment and physiological characterization of an anaerobic ammonium-oxidizing bacterium “Candidatus Brocadia sapporoensis”. Syst Appl Microbiol. 2017;40:448–57.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
29.Oshiki M, Shimokawa M, Fujii N, Satoh H, Okabe S. Physiological characteristics of the anaerobic ammonium-oxidizing bacterium “Candidatus Brocadia sinica”. Microbiol. 2011;157:1706–13.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
30.Okabe, S, Shafdar, AA, Kobayashi, K, Zhang, L, and Oshiki, M. Glycogen metabolism of the anammox bacterium “Candidatus Brocadia sinica” ISME J. 2020; https://doi.org/10.1038/s41396-020-00850-5.31.van der Star WRL, Miclea AI, van Dongen UGJM, Muyzer G, Picioreanu C, van Loosdrecht MCM. The membrane bioreactor: a novel tool to grow anammox bacteria as free cells. Biotechnol Bioeng. 2008;101:286–94.PubMed 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
32.Zhang L, Okabe S. Rapid cultivation of free-living planktonic anammox cells. Water Res. 2017;127:204–10.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
33.Oshiki M, Awata T, Kindaichi T, Satoh H, Okabe S. Cultivation of planktonic anaerobic ammonium oxidation (Anammox) bacteria using membrane bioreactor. Microbes Environ. 2013;28:436–43.PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
34.Awata T, Oshiki M, Kindaichi T, Ozaki N, Ohashi A, Okabe S. Physiological characterization of an anaerobic ammonium-oxidizing bacterium belonging to the “Candidatus Scalindua” group. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2013;79:4145–8.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
35.Zhang L, Narita Y, Gao L, Ali M, Oshiki M, Ishii S, et al. Microbial competition among anammox baxteria in nitrite-limited bioreactors. Water Res. 2017;125:249–58.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
36.Graaf AA, Van DE, Bruijn PDE, Robertson LA, Jetten MSM, Kuenen JG. Autotrophic growth of anaerobic in a fluidized bed reactor. Microbiol. 1996;142:2187–96.Article 

Google Scholar 
37.Kindaichi T, Awata T, Suzuki Y, Tanabe K, Hatamoto M, Ozaki N, et al. Enrichment using an up-flow column reactor and community structure of marine anammox bacteria from coastal sediment. Microbes Environ. 2011;26:67–73.PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
38.APHA. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Sewage, Washington DC,1998,39.Nagaraja P, Shivaswamy M, Kumar H. Highly sensitive N-(1-Naphthyl)ethylene diamine method for the spectrophotometric determination of trace amounts of nitrite in various water samples. Intern J Environ Anal Chem. 2001;80:39–48.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
40.Tsushima I, Ogasawara Y, Kindaichi T, Satoh H, Okabe S. Development of high-rate anaerobic ammonium-oxidizing (anammox) biofilm reactors. Water Res. 2007;41:1623–34.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
41.Kindaichi T, Tsushima I, Ogasawara Y, Shimokawa M, Ozaki N, Satoh H, et al. In situ activity and spatial organization of anaerobic ammonium-oxidizing (anammox) bacteria in biofilms. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2007;73:4931–9.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
42.Okabe S, Satoh H, Watanabe Y. In situ analysis of nitrifying biofilms as determined by in situ hybridization and the use of microelectrodes. Appl Environ Microbiol. 1999;65:3182–91.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
43.Pirt SJ. Maintenance energy of bacteria in growing cultures. Proc R soc Lond B Biol Sci. 1965;163:224–31.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
44.Pirt SJ. Maintenance energy: a general model for energy-limited and energy-sufficient growth. Arch Microbiol. 1982;133:300–2.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
45.Herbert D, Elsworth R, Telling RC. The continuous culture of bacteria: a theoretical and experimental study. J Gen Microbiol. 1956;14:601–22.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
46.van Verseveld HW, De Hollander JA, Frankena J, Braster M, Leeuwerik FJ, Stouthamer AH. Modeling of microbial substrate conversion, growth and product formation in a recycling fermentor. Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek. 1986;52:325–42.PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
47.Lotti T, Kleerebezem R, Lubello C, van Loosdrecht MCM. Physiological and kinetic characterization of a suspended cell anammox culture. Water Res. 2014;60:1–14.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
48.Tijhuis L, Van Loosdrecht MCM, Heijnen JJ. A thermodynmically based correlation for maintenance Gibbs energy requirements in aerobic and anaerobic chemotrophic growth. Biotechnol Bioeng. 1993;42:509–19.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
49.Strous M, Heijnen JJ, Kuenen JG, Jetten MSM. The sequencing batch reactor as a powerful tool for the study of slowly growing anaerobic ammonium-oxidizing microorganisms. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 1998;50:589–96.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
50.Awata T, Kindaichi T, Ozaki N, Ohashi A. Biomass yield efficiency of the marine anammox bacterium, “Candidatus Scalindua sp.,” is affected by salinity. Microbes Environ. 2015;30:86–91.PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
51.Henze, M. Wastewater Treatment: Biological and chemical processes. New York, NY: Springer, 1997.52.Vandekerckhove, TGL, Bodé, S, De Mulder, C, Vlaeminck, SE, Boon, N. 13C Incorporation as a tool to estimate biomass yields in thermophilic and mesophilic nitrifying communities. Front Microbiol. 2019;10:192.53.Tappe W, Tomaschewski C, Rittershaus S, Groeneweg J. Cultivation of nitrifying bacteria in the retentostat, a simple fermentor with internal biomass retention. FEMS Microbiol Ecol. 1996;19:47–52.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
54.Rebnegger C, Vos T, Graf AB, Valli M, Pronk JT, Daran-Lapujade P, et al. Picha pastoris exhibits high viability and a low maintenance energy requirement at near-zero specific growth rates. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2016;82:4570–83.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
55.Lever MA, Rogers KL, Lloyd KG, Overmann J, Schink B, Thauer RK, et al. Life under extreme energy limitation: a synthesis of laboratory- and field-based investigations. FEMS Microbiol Rev. 2015;39:688–728.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
56.Bulthuis BA, Frankena J, Koningstein GM, van Verseveld HW, Stouthamer AH. Instability of protease production in a rel1/rel2 pair of Bacillus licheniformis and associated morphological and physiological characteristics. Antonie Leeuwenhoek. 1988;54:95–111.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
57.Kempes, CP, van Bodegom PM, Wolpert, D, Libby, E, Amend, J, Hoehler, T. Drivers of bacterial maintenance and minimal energy requirements. Front Microbiol. 2017;8:31.58.Amend JP, Shock EL. Energetics of overall metabolic reactions of thermophilic and hyperthermophilic Archaea and Bacteria. FEMS Microbiol Rev. 2001;25:175–243.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
59.Amend JP, LaRowe DE. Minireview: demystifying microbial reaction energetics. Environ Microbiol. 2019;21:3539–47.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
60.Kartal B, Keltjens JT. Anammox biochemistry: a tale of heme c proteins. Trends Biochem Sci. 2016;41:998–1011.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
61.Scholten JCM, Conrad R. Energetics of syntrophic propionate oxidation in defined batch and chemostat coculture. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2000;66:2934–42.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
62.LaRowe DE, Amend JP. The energetics of anabolism in natural settings. ISME J. 2016;10:1285–95.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
63.LaRowe DE, Amend JP. Catabolic rates, population sizes and doubling/replacement times of microorganisms in natural settings. Am J Sci. 2015;315:167–203.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
64.Marschall E, Jogler M, Henssge U, Overmann J. Large-scale distribution and activity patterns of an extremely low-light-adapted population of green sulfur bacteria in the Black Sea. Environ Microbiol. 2010;12:1348–62.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
65.Bradley, JA, Arndt, S, Amend, JP, Burwicz, E, Dale, AW, Egger, M et al. Widespread energy limitation to life in global subseafloor sediments. Sci Adv. 2020;6:eaba0697.66.Hoehler TM, Jorgensen BB. Microbial life under extreme energy limitation. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2013;11:83–94.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
67.LaRowe, DE, Amend, JP. Power limits for microbial life. Front Microbiol 2015;6:718.68.Zhao R, Mogollon JM, Abby SS, Schleper C, Biddle JF, Roerdink DL. et al. Geochemical transition zone powering microbial growth in subsurface sediments. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2020;117:32617–26.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
69.Pitcher A, Villanueva L, Hopmans EC, Schouten S, Reichart G-J, Sinninghe Damste JS. Niche segregation of ammonia-oxidizing archaea and anammox bacteria in the Arabian Sea oxygen minimum zone. ISME J. 2011;5:1896–904.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
70.Füssel J, Lam P, Lavik G, Jensen MM, Holtappels M, Günter M, et al. Nitrite oxidation in the Namibian oxygen minimum zone. ISME J. 2012;6:1200–9.PubMed 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
71.Füchslin HP, Schneider C, Egli T. In glucose-limited continuous culture the minimum substrate concentration for growth, Smin, is crucial in the competition between the enterobacterium Escherichia coli and Chelatobacter heintzii, an environmentally abundant bacterium. ISME J. 2012;6:777–89.PubMed 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar  More

Soil bacterial responses to salinityThe soil salt, EC, and BD values significantly increased, while significantly lower values of TC were observed as the salinization level increased (Table S1; p  More

1.Pecl, G. T. et al. Biodiversity redistribution under climate change: Impacts on ecosystems and human well-being. Science 355, eaai9214 (2017).2.Pearson, R. G. & Dawson, T. E. Predicting the impacts of climate change on the distribution of species: Are bioclimate envelope models useful?. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 12, 361–371 (2003).Article 

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

Google Scholar 
4.Dunn, P. O. Changes in timing of breeding and reproductive success in birds. in Effects of Climate Change on Birds, 2nd edn. (eds. Dunn, P. O. & Møller, A. P.). 108–119 (Oxford University Press, 2019).5.Peterson, A. T. et al. Ecological Niches and Geographic Distributions (Princeton University Press, 2011).6.Gilman, S. E., Urban, M. C., Tewksbury, J., Gilchrist, G. W. & Holt, R. D. A framework for community interactions under climate change. Trends Ecol. Evol. 25, 325–331 (2010).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
7.Staniczenko, P. P. A., Sivasubramaniam, P., Suttle, K. B. & Pearson, R. G. Linking macroecology and community ecology: Refining predictions of species distributions using biotic interaction networks. Ecol. Lett. 20, 693–707 (2017).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
8.Mendoza, M. & Araújo, M. B. Climate shapes mammal community trophic structures and humans simplify them. Nature Commun. 10, 1–9 (2019).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
9.Bartley, T. J. et al. Food web rewiring in a changing world. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 3, 345–354 (2019).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
10.Beever, E. A. et al. Behavioral flexibility as a mechanism for coping with climate change. Front. Ecol. Environ. 15, 299–308 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
11.Blois, J. L., Williams, J. W., Fitzpatrick, M. C., Jackson, S. T. & Ferrier, S. Space can substitute for time in predicting climate-change effects on biodiversity. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA 110, 9374–9379 (2013).CAS 
PubMed 
ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
12.Blumstein, D. T. Developing an evolutionary ecology of fear: How life history and natural history traits affect disturbance tolerance in birds. Anim. Behav. 71, 389–399 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
13.Díaz M. et al. The geography of fear: A latitudinal gradient in anti-predator escape distances of birds across Europe. PLoS One 8, e64634 (2013).14.Samia, D. S., Nakagawa, S., Nomura, F., Rangel, T. F. & Blumstein, D. T. Increased tolerance to humans among disturbed wildlife. Nat. Commun. 6, 8877 (2015).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
15.Samia, D. S. M. et al. Rural-urban difference in escape behavior of European birds across a latitudinal gradient. Front. Ecol. Evol. 55, 6 (2017).
Google Scholar 
16.Møller, A. P. Urban areas as refuges from predators and flight distance of prey. Behav. Ecol. 23, 1030–1035 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
17.Møller, A. P. The value of a mouthful: Flight initiation distance as an opportunity cost. Eur. J. Ecol. 1, 43–51 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
18.Møller, A. P. et al. Urban habitats and feeders both contribute to flight initiation distance reduction in birds. Behav. Ecol. 26, 861–865 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
19.Møller, A. P., Grim, T., Ibáñez-Álamo, J. D., Markó, G. & Tryjanowski, P. Change in flight distance between urban and rural habitats following a cold winter. Behav. Ecol. 24, 1211–1217 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
20.Møller, A. P. Life history, predation and flight initiation distance in a migratory bird. J. Evol. Biol. 27, 1105–1113 (2014).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
21.Carrete, M. Heritability of fear of humans in urban and rural populations of a bird species. Sci. Rep. 6, 1–6 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
22.Díaz, M. et al. Interactive effects of fearfulness and geographical location on bird population trends. Behav. Ecol. 26, 716–721 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
23.Møller, A. P. & Díaz, M. Avian preference for close proximity to human habitation and its ecological consequences. Curr. Zool. 64, 623–630 (2018).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
24.Møller, A. P. & Díaz, M. Niche segregation, competition and urbanization. Curr Zool. 64, 145–152 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
25.Cox, A. R., Robertson, R. J., Lendvai, Á. Z., Everitt, K. & Bonier, F. Rainy springs linked to poor nestling growth in a declining avian aerial insectivore (Tachycineta bicolor). Proc. R. Soc. B 286, 20190018 (2019).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
26.Sergio, F. From individual behaviour to population pattern: weather-dependent foraging and breeding performance in black kites. Anim. Behav. 66, 1109–1117 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
27.Schemske, D. W., Mittelbach, G. G., Cornell, H. V., Sobel, J. M. & Roy, K. Is there a latitudinal gradient in the importance of biotic interactions?. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 40, 245–269 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
28.Sol, D. et al. Risk-taking behavior, urbanization and the pace of life in birds. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 72, 59 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
29.Møller, A. P. et al. Effects of urbanization on animal phenology: A continental study of paired urban and rural avian populations. Clim. Res. 66, 185–199 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
30.Winter, Y. & Von Helversen, O. The energy cost of flight: Do small bats fly more cheaply than birds?. J. Comp. Physiol. B 168, 105–111 (1998).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
31.Møller, A. P., Erritzøe, J. & Nielsen, J. T. Causes of interspecific variation in susceptibility to cat predation on birds. Chin. Birds 1, 97–111 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
32.Møller, A. P. et al. Spatial consistency in susceptibility of prey species to predation by two Accipiter hawks. J. Avian Biol. 43, 390–396 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
33.Creel, S. & Christianson, D. Relationships between direct predation and risk effects. Trends Ecol. Evol. 23, 194–201 (2008).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
34.Morelli, F. et al. Insurance for the future? Potential avian community resilience in cities across Europe. Clim. Change 159, 195–214 (2020).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
35.Storchová, L. & Hořák, D. Life-history characteristics of European birds. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 27, 400–406 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
36.Garamszegi, L. Z. & Møller, A. P. Effects of sample size and intraspecific variation in phylogenetic comparative studies: a meta-analytic review. Biol. Rev. 85, 797–805 (2010).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
37.Bell, G. A comparative method. Am. Nat. 133, 553–571 (1989).Article 

Google Scholar 
38.Schielzeth, H. Simple means to improve the interpretability of regression coefficients. Methods Ecol. Evol. 1, 103–113 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
39.Lipsey, M. W. & Wilson, D. B. Practical Meta-Analysis. https://www.campbellcollaboration.org/escalc/html/EffectSizeCalculator-Home.php (Sage, 2001).40.Cohen, J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (L. Erlbaum Associates, 1988). More

Oxygen minimum zones (OMZs) are unique oceanic regions with strong redox gradients. Anoxic zones in OMZs are hotspots for fixed nitrogen loss and production of the greenhouse gas N2O [1, 2]. Microbes in OMZs make important contributions to biogeochemistry, which motivates us to reconstruct metagenome-assembled genomes (MAGs) from the Eastern Tropical South Pacific (ETSP) OMZ (Fig. 1a, b). Among 147 recovered MAGs, we present 39 high- and medium-quality MAGs with completeness >50% and contamination 100 nM d−1) at the same station [6], where MAGs were recovered. Consistently, Thaumarchaeota MAGs (AOAs) were nearly absent (only AOA-2 had a relative abundance higher than 0.01%) and NOB MAGs (NOB-1 and NOB-2) were much more abundant than AOA in the anoxic core (Fig. 1d). MAGs in this study will provide opportunities to discover novel processes and adaptation strategies.Most MAGs had their highest relative abundances in the anoxic zone (Fig. 1c). Many of them contribute to the loss of fixed nitrogen, which occurs by denitrification (the sequential reduction of nitrate to nitrite, NO, N2O, and finally N2) and anammox (anaerobic oxidation of ammonium to N2). Measured nitrate reduction rates at this [5, 8] and other [16, 17] nearby stations were much larger than rates of any subsequent denitrification steps (e.g., nitrite reduction to N2O or to N2). Consistently, preliminary prediction of metabolisms shows that more than half of the MAGs found here contained nar, which encodes nitrate reduction, and one-third of those contained only nar and none of the other denitrification genes (i.e., they are nitrate-reducing specialists) (Fig. 2). Consistently, a previous study found that nar dramatically outnumbered the other denitrification genes in contigs from the Eastern Tropical North Pacific (ETNP) OMZ [18]. Indeed, four of the five most abundant MAGs in the anoxic core were nitrate-reducing specialists (Fig. 2). The fifth was an anammox MAG, which was only assigned to the genus level (Candidatus Scalindua) in GTDB and was not represented at the species level in the Tara Oceans dataset (Table S1). However, this anammox MAG was highly related to 20 anammox single-cell amplified genomes (SAGs) from the ETNP OMZ [19]. The anammox MAG had at least 90% average nucleotide identity (ANI) to the SAGs, with the highest ANI (98.8%) to SAG K21. Consistent with the previous work [19], the anammox MAG also encoded cyanase, indicating its potential of using organic nitrogen substrates. The most abundant nitrate reducer MAG here is Marinimicrobia-1 (Fig. 1), which belongs to the newly proposed phylum Candidatus Marinimicrobia [20]. Notably, one nitrate reducer can only be assigned to phylum level (Candidatus Wallbacteria) and was not present in the Tara Oceans MAGs (Table S1).We also identified a novel archaeal MAG possessing multiple denitrification genes. MG-II MAG-2 encoded Nar alpha and beta subunits, nitrate/nitrite transporters, copper-containing nitrite reductase, and N2O reductase (Fig. 2). Two MAGs from the Tara Oceans metagenomes (Table S1) were identified as the same species as MG-II MAG-2. TOBG_NP-110 (ANI to MG-II MAG-2 = 99.8%) from the North Pacific encoded Nar and nitrate/nitrite transporters, and TOBG_SP-208 (ANI to MG-II MAG-2 = 99.6%) from the South Pacific also contained the same denitrification genes as MG-II MAG-2 (Table S2). In addition, two MG-II SAGs (AD-615-F09 and AD-613-O09) were found at a different station of the ETSP OMZ sampled on the same cruise as this study [21]. Partial 16S rRNA genes of both SAGs are 100% identical to that of MG-II MAG-2 (alignment length = 200 bp for AD-615-F09 and 183 bp for AD-613-O09), but only AD-615-F09 might be the same species as MG-II MAG-2 based on ANI analyses (MG-II MAG-2 had 99.5% ANI to AD-615-F09, and 80.9% to AD-613-O09). Both SAGs also encoded Nar and nitrate/nitrite transporters [21]. The absence of other denitrification genes may be due to the low completeness of the two SAGs (completeness = 5.61% for both SAGs) [21]. Nitrite reductase and N2O reductase genes were located on the same contig in both MG-II MAG-2 and TOBG_SP-208 (Table S2). MG-II MAG-2 and TOBG_SP-208 had low contamination (1.9% and 0.8%, respectively), and their contigs with nitrite reductase and N2O reductase genes contained single-copy marker genes present only once in each MAG (Supplementary Methods). Although these results suggest a nearly complete denitrification metabolism in MG-II archaea, especially N2O consumption metabolism, methods besides metagenomics (e.g. reconstructing SAGs with high completeness) are highly recommended to rule out possible artifacts introduced by metagenomic binning and confirm the presence of these genes and their denitrification activity. Nonetheless, MG-II MAG-2 was present (Fig. 1e) and transcriptionally active in both Pacific OMZs (Fig. S2), indicating its adaptation to low oxygen environments. The MG-III MAG did not have any denitrification genes but was abundant in the anoxic zone (Figs. 1e and 2). It had a GC value (43.2%) distinct from all other known MG-III MAGs [22] and is the most complete (86.0%) and the least contaminated (0%) (Table S1) among all reported MG-III MAGs, indicating that MG-III is a novel archaeon in this group. Bacterial and archaeal MAGs recovered here implied that nitrogen metabolisms were present in more microbial lineages than previously thought. Further analyses of these MAGs will shed light on adaptation strategies in the unique OMZ environment and novel functions related to important element cycles. More

Data source and preprocessingConsidering factors such as amount of cloud and time intervals of image, four remote sensing images with a spatial resolution of 30 m, including Landsat 5 Thematic Mapper (TM) images for 08-21-2000, 09-04-2005 and 09-18-2010, and Landsat 8 Operational Land Imager (OLI) for 09-02-2016,were obtained from the Geospatial Data Cloud Platform (http://www.gscloud.cn). LULC information was extracted from these remote sensing images. In addition, the digital elevation model (DEM) with a spatial resolution of 30 m was obtained from the website. Elevation and slope information were derived from DEM data and used as terrain driving factors for scenario simulation. Other supporting data, such as Weishan County land use data, mine distribution data, general land use planing (2006–2020) and mineral resources planning (2008–2015), Jining City coal mining subsidence land rearrangement planning (2016–2030), were obtained from Weishan Natural Resources and Planning Bureau. These data were used for better data analysis.Considering severe ground subsidence and seeper in the study area, and referring to national standards: Current Land Use Classification (GB/T 21010-2017), remote sensing images were interpreted into six LULC types: farmland, other agricultural land, urban and rural construction land, subsided seeper area, water area, and tidal wetland.In the process of image interpretation, firstly, the remote sensing image was divided into two regions: one region were the lake and the surrounding tidal wetland, and the other region included farmland, other agricultural land, urban and rural construction land, subsided seeper area, etc.In region 1, decision tree classification, combined with the Modified Normalized Difference Water Index (MNDWI), was used to extract lakes. Then we masked them in region 1. The Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) was calculated for the remaining image of region 1. Tidal wetland was mainly distributed along rivers and lakes, and NDVI value was higher than that of farmland and other vegetation. By analyzing its geographical distribution and NDVI value, and referring to Weishan County land use data, the appropriate threshold was selected to extract tidal wetland.The spectral signature of rivers, ditches and aquaculture ponds in other agricultural land in region 2 could be easily distinguished from other surface features. They could be extracted step by step by manual visual interpretation and empirical knowledge, referring to Weishan County land use data and water system data. Then we masked them separately in region 2. After extracting rivers, ditches, aquaculture ponds with high water content, the remaining LULC type with high water content in region 2 was subsided seeper area. According to the relationship of spectral signature of different LULC types, it was concluded that among the remaining LULC types in region 2, only TM3 band value of subsided seeper area was higher than TM5 band value. Using this characteristic, subsided seeper area could be distinguished from other LULC types. After extracting subsided seeper area, the remaining LULC types in region 2 were farmland and urban and rural construction land. The spectral characteristics of them were very different. Therefore, they could be distinguished using support vector machine (SVM) classification method, and their respective binary images were generated using decision tree method.The extracted six LULC types were shown in single layer and binary form respectively. Six LULC types were coded and synthesized into one image. We obtained 2000, 2005, 2010, 2016 LULC type maps (Fig. 2). Finally classification post-processing and accuracy evaluation were operated.Figure 2The LULC types maps of 2000, 2005, 2010 and 2016. Maps were generated using ArcGIS 10.1 for Desktop (http://www.esri.com/software/arcgis/arcgis-for-desktop).Full size imageThe accuracy of the interpretation results was verified by confusion matrix and kappa coefficient. The kappa coefficients of the four interpretation maps were 0.84, 0.85, 0.82 and 0.86, respectively (Table 1). The accuracy could meet the needs of further research.Table 1 Accuracy evaluation of the interpretation results (%).Full size tableBy reading previous research results37,38,39,40,41, based on the entropy theory, in the same study area, high spatial resolution data contains more entropy than low spatial resolution data, and reflecting more detailed information, but it will increase the uncertainty of prediction results and reduce the prediction accuracy. Although the prediction accuracy of low spatial resolution data increases, it will lose lots of detailed information. In order to ensure the accuracy of the simulation, considering the area of the study area and data requirement of the CLUE-S model, the interpreted LULC maps with a resolution of 30 m exceed the upper limit of the CLUE-S model data requirement, so the LULC maps were resampled to multiple scales including 60 m, 90 m, 120 m, and 150 m to facilitate logistic regression analysis of LULC types and driving factors.Selection and processing of driving factorsTo interpret the relationship between the LULC and its driving factors in the mining area, we not only need to identify the driving factors that have greater explanatory power for LULC change, but also need to quantitatively describe the relationship between driving factors and LULC types.Considering the accessibility, usability of the data and the actual conditions in the study area, seven driving factors were selected based on the land use map of Weishan County in 2005 and the DEM data5,10,11,13,26,28,29,30. The driving factors included: (1) terrain factors, including elevation and slope factors; (2) five accessibility factors, including the nearest distance between each grid pixel and the main roads, the major rivers, the residential area, the major mines, and the ditches. The 30 m grid data of each driving factor were resampled to 60 m, 90 m, 120 m and 150 m respectively.In this study, BLRM was used to explore the relationship between LULC change and the related 7 driving factors. BLRM is sensitive to multicollinearity. In order to eliminate the influence of collinearity on the regression results, the multicollinearity between independent variables was diagnosed before the regression model was established.The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was used to evaluate the accuracy of regression analysis results at different scales. The results showed that using 60 m resolution provided more accurate regression analysis results and suffered less loss of LULC and driving factor information during resampling. Therefore, we used 60 m × 60 m grid cell data to driving forces analysis.Raster maps of each driving factor at a resolution scale of 60 m are shown in Fig. 3.Figure 3Raster maps of driving factors at a resolution scale of 60 m. Maps were generated using ArcGIS 10.1 for Desktop (http://www.esri.com/software/arcgis/arcgis-for-desktop).Full size imageLogistic regression analysis of LULC types and driving factorsBLRM is often used for regression analysis of explanatory binary variables. The presence and absence of a certain type of LULC in a specific area is set as 1 and 0, respectively, which is characteristic for binary variable. Therefore, we used BLRM to calculate the probability (P) of various LULC types in a specific spatial location, and its mathematical expression is:$$begin{aligned} ln left( frac{P}{1-P}right) = beta _0 + beta _1 X end{aligned}$$
(1)
where (frac{P}{1-P}) is the ’odds ratio’ of an event, abbreviated as ( Omega ), which represents the odds that an outcome will occur given a particular condition compared to the odds of the outcome occurring in the absence of that condition; (beta _0) is a constant; (beta _1) is the correlation coefficient of an explaining variable and an explained variable. Making mathematical transformation of the above expression, we get: (Omega = (frac{P}{1-P}) = e^{beta _0 + beta _1 X}).Regression analysis using BLRM, we divided the study area into many grid cells. Taking each LULC type as the explained variable, and the driving factor causing LULC change as the explanatory variable, we calculated the odds ratio of each LULC type in a specific spatial location, and analyzed the relationship between each LULC type and the driving factors. The calculating equation is:$$begin{aligned} mathrm{Logit} P = ln left( frac{P_i}{1-P_i}right) = beta _0 + beta _1 X_{1,i} + beta _2 X_{2,i} + cdots + beta _n X_{n,i} end{aligned}$$
(2)
Making mathematical transformation of the above equation, we get:$$begin{aligned} P_i = frac{e^{(beta _0 + beta _1 X_{1,i} + beta _2 X_{2,i} + cdots + beta _n X_{n,i})}}{1+e^{(beta _0 + beta _1 X_{1,i} + beta _2 X_{2,i} + cdots + beta _n X_{n,i})}} end{aligned}$$
(3)
where: (P_i) is the probability of a certain LULC type i in a grid cell, (X_{1,i}sim X_{n,i}) are the driving factors of LULC type i, (beta _0) is the constant, (beta _1sim beta _n) are the correlation coefficients of each driving factor and LULC type i.The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) was used to evaluate the accuracy of regression analysis results. The accuracy can be measured by calculating the area under the ROC curve. The area value is between 0.5 and 1. The closer the value is to 1, the higher the accuracy is. In general, the area under the ROC curve is greater than 0.7, which indicates that the selected factor has good explanatory power27,42.CLUE-S simulation and accuracy validationBefore using the CLUE-S model for futural LULC scenario simulation in mining area, the prediction accuracy needs to be verified. Based on the data of LULC in 2005, the spatial distribution pattern of LULC in 2016 was predicted firstly.The modeling accuracy was evaluated based on the Kappa index by comparing the actual LULC map in 2016 with the simulated in 201627,43,44. Equation (4) gives one of the most popular Kappa index equations: i.e.,$$begin{aligned} mathrm{Kappa}=frac{P_o-P_c}{P_p-P_c} end{aligned}$$
(4)
where (P_o) is the observed proportion correct, (P_c) is the expected proportion correct due to chance, (P_c) =1/n, n is the number of LULC types, and (P_p) is the proportion correct when classification is perfect.In order to further verify the accuracy of the model simulation, we also calculated kappa for quantity (Kquantity).Scenario setting of futural LULC simulationDue to the continuous population growth and mineral exploitation in the study area, the land resources, especially farmland resources, have become increasingly scarce and the environment has been deteriorating. Based on the simulation and validated results during 2005-2016, we defined three scenarios—namely natural development scenario, ecological protection scenario, and farmland protection scenario—to predict LULC spatial patterns for 2025.Natural development scenarioIn this scenario, the land use demand of the study area was basically not restricted by policies in near future. We assumed that the change rate of each LULC type in near future was consistent with the change trend from 2005 to 2016. So it is defined as natural development scenario. Using Markov model to obtain the area transition probability matrix of each year from 2017 to 2025, and taking the proportion of each LULC type area in the total study area in 2005 as the initial state matrix, the area of each LULC type in 2025 under the natural development scenario was predicted.Based on the characteristics and trend of the LULC change from 2005 to 2016, after appropriately adjusting the transition probability matrix of different LULC types, we predicted the demands of each LULC type in 2025 under ecological protection scenario and farmland protection scenario using Markov model45,46.Ecological protection scenarioThis scenario emphasizes protecting the ecological environment, restricting the conversion of the LULC types that have more regulatory effects on the ecosystem, such as tidal wetland and water area, to other land use types. Garden land, woodland, grassland, and aquaculture land, belong to other agricultural land, which have regulatory effects on the local ecosystem, so their conversion to other LULC types should be restricted as well.Farmland protection scenarioAccording to the guidelines of “the general land use planning in Weishan County (2006-2020)”, we should maximize the potential use of current construction land, implement intensive and economical utilization of construction land, and use less or not use farmland to economical construction. So in order to ensure the dynamic balance of total farmland amount and the regional food supply security, in the farmland protection scenario, the conversion from farmland to other land use types should be restricted. The projected land use demands for 2025 under the three different scenarios are shown in Table 2.Table 2 Areas of LULC types in 2025 under different scenarios (ha).Full size table More

1.Lewis, G. P. Legumes of the World (Royal Botanic Gardens, 2005).
Google Scholar 
2.The Legume Phylogeny Working Group (LPWG). A new subfamily classification of the Leguminosae based on a taxonomically comprehensive phylogeny. Taxon 66, 44–77 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
3.Yahara, T. et al. Global legume diversity assessment: Concepts, key indicators, and strategies. Taxon 62, 249–266 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
4.Odendo, M., Bationo, A. & Kimani, S. Socio-economic contribution of legumes to livelihoods in Sub-Saharan Africa. In Fighting Poverty in Sub-Saharan Africa: The Multiple Roles of Legumes in Integrated Soil Fertility Management (eds Bationo, A. et al.) 27–46 (Springer, 2011).Chapter 

Google Scholar 
5.Dakora, F. D. & Keya, S. O. Contribution of legume nitrogen fixation to sustainable agriculture in Sub-Saharan Africa. Soil Biol. Biochem. 29, 809–817 (1997).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
6.Ajeigde, H. A., Singh, B. B. & Osenj, T. O. Cowpea-cereal intercrop productivity in the Sudan savanna zone of Nigeria as affected by planting pattern, crop variety and pest management. Afr. Crop Sci. J. 13, 269–279 (2005).
Google Scholar 
7.Rahmanian, M., Batello, C. & Calles, T. Pulse Crops for Sustainable Farms in Sub-Saharan Africa (FAO, 2018).
Google Scholar 
8.Rawal, V. & Navarro, D. K. The Global Economy of Pulses (FAO, 2017).
Google Scholar 
9.Plants of the World Online. http://powo.science.kew.org (2020).10.Broughton, W. J. et al. Beans (Phaseolus spp.)—Model food legumes. Plant Soil 252, 55–128 (2003).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
11.Delgado-Salinas, A., Bibler, R. & Lavin, M. Phylogeny of the genus Phaseolus (Leguminosae): A recent diversification in an ancient landscape. Syst. Bot. 31, 779–791 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
12.Greenway, P. J. Origins of some East African food plants: Part V. East Afr. Agric. J. 11, 56–63 (1945).
Google Scholar 
13.Wortmann, C. S. & Allen, D. J. African Bean Production Environments: Their Definition, Characteristics and Constraints. Occasional Publication Series 11 (CIAT, 1994).
Google Scholar 
14.Maxted, N. et al. African Vigna: Systematic and Ecogeographic Studies (International Plant Genetic Resource Institute, 2004).
Google Scholar 
15.Singh, B. B. Cowpea: The Food Legume of the 21st Century (Crop Science Society of America Inc., 2014).Book 

Google Scholar 
16.Catarino, S. et al. Conservation priorities for African Vigna species: Unveiling Angola’s diversity hotspots. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 25, e01415. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2020.e01415 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
17.Vidigal, P., Romeiras, M. M. & Monteiro, F. Crops diversification and the role of orphan legumes to improve the Sub-Saharan Africa farming systems. In Sustainable Crop Production (ed. Hasanuzzaman, M.) (IntechOpen, 2019).
Google Scholar 
18.Maréchal, R. Etude taxonomique d’un groupe complexe d’espèces des genres Phaseolus et Vigna (Papilionaceae) sur la base de données morphologiques et polliniques, traitées par l’analyse informatique. Boissiera 28, 1–273 (1978).
Google Scholar 
19.Peksen, E., Peksen, A. & Gulumser, A. Leaf and stomata characteristics and tolerance of cowpea cultivars to drought stress based on drought tolerance indices under rainfed and irrigated conditions. Int. J. Curr. Microbiol. Appl. Sci. 3, 626–634 (2014).CAS 

Google Scholar 
20.Iqbal, A., Khalil, I. A., Ateeq, N. & Khan, M. S. Nutritional quality of important food legumes. Food Chem. 97, 331–335 (2006).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
21.African Orphan Crops Consortium. http://africanorphancrops.org/meet-the-crops/ (2021)22.Boukar, O. et al. Cowpea. In Grain Legumes (ed. de Ron, A. M.) 219–250 (Springer, 2015).Chapter 

Google Scholar 
23.Animasaun, D. A., Oyedeji, S., Azeez, Y. K., Mustapha, O. T. & Azeez, M. A. Genetic variability study among ten cultivars of cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L. Walp) using morpho-agronomic traits and nutritional composition. J. Agric. Sci. 10, 119–130 (2015).
Google Scholar 
24.Timko, M. P. & Singh, B. B. Cowpea, a multifunctional legume. In Plant Genetics and Genomics: Crops and Models Vol. 1 (eds Moore, P. H. & Ming, R.) 227–258 (Springer, 2008).
Google Scholar 
25.Wortmann, S. C., Kirkby, A. R., Eledu, A. C. & Allen, J. D. Atlas of Common Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) Production in Africa (International Centre for Tropical Agriculture, 2004).
Google Scholar 
26.Guignard, M. S. et al. Genome size and ploidy influence angiosperm species’ biomass under nitrogen and phosphorus limitation. New Phytol. 210, 1195–1206 (2016).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
27.Sheidai, M. et al. Genetic diversity and genome size variability in Linum austriacum (Lineaceae) populations. Biochem. Syst. Ecol. 57, 20–26 (2014).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
28.Kron, P., Suda, J. & Husband, B. C. Applications of flow cytometry to evolutionary and population biology. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 38, 847–876 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
29.Wu, Y. Q. et al. Genetic analyses of Chinese Cynodon accessions by flow cytometry and AFLP markers. Crop Sci. 46, 917–926 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
30.Parida, A., Raina, S. N. & Narayan, R. K. J. Quantitative DNA variation between and within chromosome complements of Vigna species (Fabaceae). Genetica 82, 125–133 (1990).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
31.Nagl, W. & Treviranus, A. A flow cytometric analysis of the nuclear 2C DNA content in 17 Phaseolus species (53 genotypes). Bot. Acta 108, 403–406 (1995).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
32.Barow, M. & Meister, A. Endopolyploidy in seed plants is differently correlated to systematics, organ, life strategy and genome size. Plant Cell Environ. 26, 571–584 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
33.Lonardi, S. et al. The genome of cowpea (Vigna unguiculata [L.] Walp.). Plant J. 98, 767–782 (2019).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
34.The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2020-2. https://www.iucnredlist.org/ (2020).35.Genesys. Plant Genetic Resources Accession. https://www.genesys-pgr.org/ (2021).36.Pope, G. V. & Polhill, R. M. Flora Zambesiaca, part 5 Vol. 3 (Royal Botanic Gardens, 2001).
Google Scholar 
37.Tomooka, N., Vaughan, D. A., Moss, H. & Maxted, N. The Asian Vigna: Genus Vigna Subgenus Ceratotropis Genetic Resources (Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2002).Book 

Google Scholar 
38.Debouck, D. G. Primary diversification of Phaseolus in the Americas: Three centers. Plant Genet. Resour. Newsl. 67, 2–8 (1986).
Google Scholar 
39.Plant Resources of Tropical Africa. https://www.prota4u.org/database/ (2021).40.Linder, H. P. The evolution of African plant diversity. Front. Ecol. Evol. 2, 38. https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2014.00038 (2014).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
41.Romeiras, M. M., Figueira, R., Duarte, M. C., Beja, P. & Darbyshire, I. Documenting biogeographical patterns of African timber species using herbarium records: A conservation perspective based on native trees from Angola. PLoS ONE 9, e103403. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0103403 (2014).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
42.Catarino, S. et al. Spatial and temporal trends of burnt area in angola: Implications for natural vegetation and protected area management. Diversity 12, 307. https://doi.org/10.3390/d12080307 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
43.Catarino, S., Duarte, M. C., Costa, E., Carrero, P. G. & Romeiras, M. M. Conservation and sustainable use of the medicinal Leguminosae plants from Angola. PeerJ 7, e6736. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.6736 (2019).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
44.Romeiras, M. M. et al. IUCN Red List assessment of the Cape Verde endemic flora: Towards a global strategy for plant conservation in Macaronesia. Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 180, 413–425 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
45.Gomes, A. M. et al. Drought response of cowpea (Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp.) landraces at leaf physiological and metabolite profile levels. Environ. Exp. Bot. 175, 104060. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envexpbot.2020.104060 (2020).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
46.The International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA). https://www.iita.org/ (2021)47.Fatokun, C. et al. Genetic diversity and population structure of a mini-core subset from the world cowpea (Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp.) germplasm collection. Sci. Rep. 8, 16035. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-34555-9 (2018).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
48.Rocha, V., Duarte, M. C., Catarino, S., Duarte, I. & Romeiras, M. M. Cabo Verde’s Poaceae flora: A reservoir of crop wild relatives diversity for crop improvement. Front. Plant Sci. 12, 630217. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2021.630217 (2021).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
49.Brilhante, M. et al. Tackling food insecurity in Cabo Verde Islands: The nutritional, agricultural and environmental values of the legume species. Foods 10, 206. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods10020206 (2021).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
50.Pasquet, R. S. Wild cowpea (Vigna unguiculata) evolution. In Advances in Legume Systematics 8: Legumes of Economic Importance (eds Pickersgill, B. & Lock, J. M.) 95–100 (Royal Botanic Gardens, 1996).
Google Scholar 
51.Di Bella, G. et al. Mineral composition of some varieties of beans from Mediterranean and Tropical areas. Int. J. Food Sci. Nutr. 67, 239–248 (2016).PubMed 
Article 
CAS 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
52.Gelin, J. R., Forster, S., Grafton, K. F., McClean, P. E. & Rojas-Cifuentes, G. A. Analysis of seed zinc and other minerals in a recombinant inbred population of navy bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). Crop Sci. 47, 1361–1366 (2007).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
53.Dakora, F. D. & Belane, A. K. Evaluation of protein and micronutrient levels in edible cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L. Walp) leaves and seeds. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 3, 70. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2019.00070 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
54.Yeken, M. Z., Akpolat, H., Karaköy, T. & Çiftçi, V. Assessment of mineral content variations for biofortification of the bean seed. Int. J. Agric. Sci. 4, 261–269 (2018).
Google Scholar 
55.Gondwe, T. M., Alamu, E. O., Mdziniso, P. & Maziya-Dixon, B. Cowpea (Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp) for food security: An evaluation of end-user traits of improved varieties in Swaziland. Sci. Rep. 9, 15991. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-52360-w (2019).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
56.Sperotto, R. A., Ricachenevsky, F. K., Williams, L. E., Vasconcelos, M. W. & Menguer, P. K. From soil to seed: Micronutrient movement into and within the plant. Front. Plant Sci. 5, 438. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2014.00438 (2014).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
57.Maziya-Dixon, B., Kling, J. G., Menkir, A. & Dixon, A. Genetic variation in total carotene, iron, and zinc contents of maize and cassava genotypes. Food Nutr. Bull. 21, 419–422 (2000).Article 

Google Scholar 
58.Shewfelt, R. L. Sources of variation in the nutrient content of agricultural commodities from the farm to the consumer. J. Food Qual. 13, 37–54 (1990).Article 

Google Scholar 
59.World Health Organization. The World Health Report 2006: Working Together for Health. https://www.who.int/whr/2006/whr06_en.pdf?ua=1 (2006).60.Gödecke, T., Stein, A. J. & Qaim, M. The global burden of chronic and hidden hunger: Trends and determinants. Glob. Food Sec. 17, 21–29 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
61.Shankar, A. H. Mineral deficiencies. In Hunter’s Tropical Medicine and Emerging Infectious Diseases (eds Ryan, E. T. et al.) 1048–1054 (Elsevier, 2020).Chapter 

Google Scholar 
62.Muthayya, S. et al. The global hidden hunger indices and maps: An advocacy tool for action. PLoS ONE 8, e67860. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0067860 (2013).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
63.Joy, E. J. et al. Dietary mineral supplies in Africa. Physiol. Plant. 151, 208–229 (2014).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
64.World Health Organization. World health statistics 2015. https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/170250/9789240694439_eng.pdf;jsessionid=9CFCB446F9217B60415DD216E70F6A49?sequence=1 (2015).65.Muriuki, J. M. et al. Estimating the burden of iron deficiency among African children. BMC Med. 18, 31. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-020-1502-7 (2020).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
66.Official Journal of the European Union. Regulation (Eu) No 1169/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32011R1169&from=EN (2011).67.Nowicka, A. et al. Nuclear DNA content variation within the genus Daucus (Apiaceae) determined by flow cytometry. Sci. Hortic. 209, 132–138 (2016).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
68.Guilengue, N., Alves, S., Talhinhas, P. & Neves-Martins, J. Genetic and genomic diversity in a tarwi (Lupinus mutabilis Sweet) germplasm collection and adaptability to Mediterranean climate conditions. Agronomy 10, 21. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy10010021 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
69.Chable, V. et al. Embedding cultivated diversity in society for agro-ecological transition. Sustainability 12, 784. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12030784 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
70.Knight, C. A., Molinari, N. A. & Petrov, D. A. The large genome constraint hypothesis: Evolution, ecology and phenotype. Ann. Bot. 95, 177–190 (2005).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
71.Pati, K., Zhang, F. & Batley, J. First report of genome size and ploidy of the underutilized leguminous tuber crop Yam Bean (Pachyrhizus erosus and P. tuberosus) by flow cytometry. Plant Genet. Resour. 17, 456–459 (2019).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
72.Sliwinska, E. Flow cytometry—A modern method for exploring genome size and nuclear DNA synthesis in horticultural and medicinal plant species. Folia Hortic. 30, 103–128 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
73.Veselý, P., Bureš, P. & Šmarda, P. Nutrient reserves may allow for genome size increase: Evidence from comparison of geophytes and their sister non-geophytic relatives. Ann. Bot. 112, 1193–1200 (2013).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
74.African Plant Database. http://www.ville-ge.ch/musinfo/bd/cjb/africa/index. (2021).75.Hyde, M. A., Wursten, B. T., Ballings, P. & Coates Palgrave, M. Flora of Botswana. https://www.botswanaflora.com (2021).76.Hyde, M. A., Wursten, B. T., Ballings, P. & Coates Palgrave, M. Flora of Malawi. http://www.malawiflora.com (2021).77.Hyde, M. A., Wursten, B. T., Ballings, P. & Coates Palgrave, M. Flora of Mozambique. http://www.mozambiqueflora.com (2021)78.Bingham, M. G., Willemen, A., Wursten, B. T., Ballings, P. & Hyde, M. A. Flora of Zambia http://www.zambiaflora.com (2021).79.Hyde, M. A., Wursten, B. T., Ballings, P. & Coates Palgrave, M. Flora of Zimbabwe. http://www.zimbabweflora.co.zw (2021).80.International Legume Database & Information Service. https://ildis.org/LegumeWeb (2020).81.Exell, A.W. & Fernandes, A. Conspectus florae angolensis. Vol. 3, No. 2. Leguminosae (Papilionoideae: Hedysareae-Sophoreae) (Junta de Investigações do Ultramar, 1966)82.Pasquet, R. S. Notes on the genus Vigna (Leguminosae-Papilionoideae). Kew Bull 56, 223–227 (2001).Article 

Google Scholar 
83.van Zonneveld, M. et al. Mapping patterns of abiotic and biotic stress resilience uncovers conservation gaps and breeding potential of Vigna wild relatives. Sci. Rep. 10, 2111. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-58646-8 (2020).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
84.Global Biodiversity Information Facility. https://www.gbif.org/ (2021).85.GBIF Occurrence Download—Vigna. https://doi.org/10.15468/dl.bsjsk5 (2021).86.GBIF Occurrence Download—Phaseolus. https://doi.org/10.15468/dl.kjw72 (2021).87.QGIS Development Team. QGIS Geographic Information System. Open Source Geospatial Foundation Project. http://qgis.osgeo.org (2021).88.Doležel, J., Sgorbati, S. & Lucretti, S. Comparison of three DNA fluorochromes for flow cytometric estimation of nuclear DNA content in plants. Physiol. Plant. 85, 625–631 (1992).Article 

Google Scholar 
89.Loureiro, J., Rodriguez, E., Doležel, J. & Santos, C. Two new nuclear isolation buffers for plant DNA flow cytometry: A test with 37 species. Ann. Bot. 100, 875–888 (2007).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
90.Doležel, J. & Bartoš, J. Plant DNA flow cytometry and estimation of nuclear genome size. Ann. Bot. 95, 99–110 (2005).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
91.Doležel, J., Bartoš, J., Voglmayr, H. & Greilhuber, J. Nuclear DNA content and genome size of trout and human. Cytometry 51, 127–128 (2003).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
92.Jelihovschi, E. G., Faria, J. C. & Allaman, I. B. ScottKnott: A package for performing the Scott-Knott clustering algorithm in R. TEMA 15, 3–17 (2014).MathSciNet 
Article 

Google Scholar 
93.Wickham, H. ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis (Springer, 2016).MATH 
Book 

Google Scholar 
94.R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing https://www.R-project.org/ (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2020). More

1.Vijay, V., Pimm, S. L., Jenkins, C. N. & Smith, S. J. The impacts of oil palm on recent deforestation and biodiversity loss. PLoS One 11, pe0159668 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
2.Rulli, M. C. et al. Interdependencies and telecoupling of oil palm expansion at the expense of Indonesian rainforest. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 105, 499–512 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
3.Davis, K. F. et al. Tropical forest loss enhanced by large-scale land acquisitions. Nat. Geosci. 13, 482–488 (2020).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
4.Strona, G. et al. Small room for compromise between oil palm cultivation and primate conservation in Africa. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115, 8811–8816 (2018).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
5.United States Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agricultural Service. Data retrieved from: https://apps.fas.usda.gov/psdonline/app/index.html#/app/advQuery (2020).6.Sagar, H. S. et al. India in the oil palm era: describing India’s dependence on palm oil, recommendations for sustainable production, and opportunities to become an influential consumer. Trop. Conserv. Sci. 12, 1940082919838918 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
7.Jadhav, R. Exclusive: India urges boycott of Malaysian palm oil after diplomatic row—sources. Reuters (13 January 2020).8.Srinivasan, U. Oil palm should not be expanded in Arunachal Pradesh. Arunachal Times (October 2016).9.Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers’ Welfare. National Mission on Oilseeds and Oil Palm; https://nmoop.gov.in (Government of India, 2020).10.Bose, P. Oil palm plantations vs shifting cultivation for indigenous peoples: analyzing Mizoram’s New Land Use Policy. Land Use Policy 81, 115–123 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
11.Dhar, A. Enter oil palm in northeast India: centre, Patanjali, Godrej bet big. The Citizen (16 September 2020).12.Raman, T. R. S. R. Is oil palm expansion good for Mizoram? The Frontier Despatch 3, 6–7 (2016).
Google Scholar 
13.Khandekar, N. Expanding oil palm plantations in the northeast could extract a long-term cost. The Wire (4 August 2020).14.Mandal, J. & Raman, T. R. S. R. Shifting agriculture supports more tropical forest birds than oil palm or teak plantations in Mizoram, northeast India. The Condor 118, 345–359 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
15.Nandi, J. Oil palm push on the northeast may impact biodiversity, water table, say experts. Hindustan Times 10, 51 (2020).
Google Scholar 
16.Myers, N., Mittermeier, R. A., Mittermeier, C. G., Da Fonseca, G. A. B. & Kent, J. Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 403, 853–858 (2000).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
17.Global Agro-Ecological Zones, GAEZ v.3.0 (Food and Agriculture Organization, 2016); https://gaez.fao.org/pages/data-viewer18.Corley, R. H. V. How much palm oil do we need? Environ. Sci. Policy 12, 134–139 (2009).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
19.Meijaard, E. et al. The environmental impacts of palm oil in context. Nat. Plants 6, 1418–1426 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
20.West, P. C. et al. Leverage points for improving global food security and the environment. Science 18, 325–328 (2014).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
21.Fan, Y., Li, H. & Miguez-Macho, G. Global patterns of groundwater table depth. Science 339, 940–943 (2013).22.Shaktivadivel, R. The Agricultural Groundwater Revolution: Opportunities and Threats to Development (CAB International, 2007).
Google Scholar 
23.Lee, J. S. H., Miteva, D. A., Carlson, K. M., Heilmayr, R. & Saif, O. Does oil palm certification create trade-offs between environment and development in Indonesia? Env. Res. Lett. 15, 124064 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
24.Sankar, K. N. M. Oil palm finds favour with East Godavari farmers. The Hindu (25 January 2017).25.Curry, G. N. & Koczberski, G. Finding common ground: relational concepts of land tenure and economy in the oil palm frontier of Papua New Guinea. Geogr. J. 175, 98–111 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
26.DeVos, R., Kohne, M. & Roth, D. We’ll turn your water in Coca Cola: the atomising practices of oil palm development in Indonesia. J. Agrar. Change 1, 385–405 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
27.IPCC. Climate Change: Synthesis Report (eds Core Writing Team, Pachauri, R. K. & Meyer, L. A.) (IPCC, 2014).28.IPCC. IPCC Special Reports on Emissions Scenarios: Summary for Policymakers (IPCC, 2000).29.Schwalm, C. R., Glendon, S. & Duffy, P. B. RCP8. 5 tracks cumulative CO2 emissions. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 18, 19656–19657 (2020).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
30.Copernicus Land Monitoring Service (European Environment Agency, 2020).31.Hoffman, M., Koenig, K., Bunting, G., Cosntanza, J. & Willams, K. J. Biodiversity Hotspots v.2016.1 (2016); https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.326180632.IUCN World Database on Protected Areas, online April 2017 (UNEP-WCMC, 2016); www.protectedplanet.net33.QGIS Development Team. QGIS Geographic Information System (Open Source Geospatial Foundation, 2021); http://qgis.osgeo.org34.R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2021). More