Philippa Kaur

1.Landis, D. A. Designing agricultural landscapes for biodiversity-based ecosystem services. Basic Appl. Ecol. 18, 1–12 (2017).
Google Scholar 
2.Aguilar, J. et al. Crop species diversity changes in the United States: 1978–2012. PLoS ONE 10, e0136580 (2015).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
3.Census of Agriculture (USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service, 2017); www.nass.usda.gov/AgCensus4.Fahrig, L. et al. Functional landscape heterogeneity and animal biodiversity in agricultural landscapes. Ecol. Lett. 14, 101–112 (2011).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
5.Meehan, T. D., Werling, B. P., Landis, D. A. & Gratton, C. Agricultural landscape simplification and insecticide use in the Midwestern United States. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108, 11500–11505 (2011).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
6.Tiemann, L. K., Grandy, A. S., Atkinson, E. E., Marin-Spiotta, E. & McDaniel, M. D. Crop rotational diversity enhances belowground communities and functions in an agroecosystem. Ecol. Lett. 18, 761–771 (2015).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
7.Abson, D. J., Fraser, E. D. & Benton, T. G. Landscape diversity and the resilience of agricultural returns: a portfolio analysis of land-use patterns and economic returns from lowland agriculture. Agric. Food Secur. 2, 2 (2013).
Google Scholar 
8.Dainese, M. et al. A global synthesis reveals biodiversity-mediated benefits for crop production. Sci. Adv. 5, eaax0121 (2019).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
9.Ojha, S. & Dimov, L. Variation in the diversity-productivity relationship in young forests of the eastern United States. PLoS ONE 12, e0187106 (2017).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
10.Smith, R. G., Gross, K. L. & Robertson, G. P. Effects of crop diversity on agroecosystem function: crop yield response. Ecosystems 11, 355–366 (2008).
Google Scholar 
11.Karp, D. S. et al. Crop pests and predators exhibit inconsistent responses to surrounding landscape composition. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115, E7863–E7870 (2018).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
12.Bastian, O., Grunewald, K., Syrbe, R. U., Walz, U. & Wende, W. Landscape services: the concept and its practical relevance. Landsc. Ecol. 29, 1463–1479 (2014).
Google Scholar 
13.Winfree, R. et al. Species turnover promotes the importance of bee diversity for crop pollination at regional scales. Science 359, 791–793 (2018).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
14.Duarte, G. T., Santos, P. M., Cornelissen, T. G., Ribeiro, M. C. & Paglia, A. P. The effects of landscape patterns on ecosystem services: meta-analyses of landscape services. Landsc. Ecol. 33, 1247–1257 (2018).
Google Scholar 
15.Li, C. et al. Crop diversity for yield increase. PLoS ONE 4, e8049 (2009).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
16.Swinton, S. M., Lupi, F., Robertson, G. P. & Hamilton, S. K. Ecosystem services and agriculture: cultivating agricultural ecosystems for diverse benefits. Ecol. Econ. 64, 245–252 (2007).
Google Scholar 
17.Cardinale, B. J. et al. Biodiversity loss and its impact on humanity. Nature 486, 59–67 (2012).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
18.Burchfield, E. K., Nelson, K. S. & Spangler, K. The impact of agricultural landscape diversification on US crop production. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 285, 106615 (2019).
Google Scholar 
19.Galpern, P., Vickruck, J., Devries, J. H. & Gavin, M. P. Landscape complexity is associated with crop yields across a large temperate grassland region. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 290, 106724 (2020).
Google Scholar 
20.Morris, E. K. et al. Choosing and using diversity indices: insights for ecological applications from the German Biodiversity Exploratories. Ecol. Evol. 4, 3514–3524 (2014).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
21.Burke, M. & Emerick, K. Adaptation to climate change: evidence from US agriculture. Am. Econ. J. Econ. Pol. 8, 106–140 (2016).
Google Scholar 
22.Lobell, D. B. et al. The critical role of extreme heat for maize production in the United States. Nat. Clim. Change 3, 497–501 (2013).ADS 

Google Scholar 
23.Schlenker, W. & Roberts, M. J. Nonlinear temperature effects indicate severe damages to US crop yields under climate change. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106, 15594–15598 (2009).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
24.Schauberger, B., Rolinski, S. & Müller, C. A network-based approach for semi-quantitative knowledge mining and its application to yield variability. Environ. Res. Lett. 11, 123001 (2016).ADS 

Google Scholar 
25.Burchfield, E., Matthews-Pennanen, N., Stoebner, J. & Lant, C. Changing yields in the central United States under climate and technological change. Clim. Change 159, 329–346 (2019).ADS 

Google Scholar 
26.Rosenzweig, C. et al. Assessing agricultural risks of climate change in the 21st century in a global gridded crop model intercomparison. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 3268–3273 (2014).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
27.Troy, T. J., Kipgen, C. & Pal, I. The impact of climate extremes and irrigation on US crop yields. Environ. Res. Lett. 10, 054013 (2015).ADS 

Google Scholar 
28.Chaplin‐Kramer, R., O’Rourke, M. E., Blitzer, E. J. & Kremen, C. A meta‐analysis of crop pest and natural enemy response to landscape complexity. Ecol. Lett. 14, 922–932 (2011).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
29.Grab, H., Danforth, B., Poveda, K. & Loeb, G. Landscape simplification reduces classical biological control and crop yield. Ecol. Appl. 28, 348–355 (2018).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
30.Martin, E. A. et al. The interplay of landscape composition and configuration: new pathways to manage functional biodiversity and agroecosystem services across Europe. Ecol. Lett. 22, 1083–1094 (2019).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
31.Lark, T. J., Spawn, S. A., Bougie, M. & Gibbs, H. K. Cropland expansion in the United States produces marginal yields at high costs to wildlife. Nat. Commun. 11, 4295 (2020).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
32.Finney, D. M. & Kaye, J. P. Functional diversity in cover crop polycultures increases multifunctionality of an agricultural system. J. Appl. Ecol. 54, 509–517 (2017).
Google Scholar 
33.Bowles, T. M. et al. Long-term evidence shows that crop-rotation diversification increases agricultural resilience to adverse growing conditions in North America. One Earth 2, 284–293 (2020).
Google Scholar 
34.Tscharntke, T. et al. Landscape perspectives on agricultural intensification and biodiversity-ecosystem service management. Ecol. Lett. 8, 857–874 (2012).
Google Scholar 
35.Swift, M. J., Izac, A.-M. N. & van Noordwijk, M. Biodiversity and ecosystem services in agricultural landscapes—are we asking the right questions? Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 104, 113–134 (2004).
Google Scholar 
36.CropScrape—Cropland Data Layer (USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service, 2018); https://nassgeodata.gmu.edu/CropScape/37.Schulte, L. A. et al. Prairie strips improve biodiversity and the delivery of multiple ecosystem services from corn–soybean croplands. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, 11247–11252 (2017).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
38.Albrecht, M. et al. The effectiveness of flower strips and hedgerows on pest control, pollination services and crop yield: a quantitative synthesis. Ecol. Lett. 23, 1488–1498 (2020).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
39.Liang, X. Z. et al. Determining climate effects on US total agricultural productivity. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, E2285–E2292 (2017).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
40.Brandes, E. et al. Subfield profitability analysis reveals an economic case for cropland diversification. Environ. Res. Lett. 11, 014009 (2016).ADS 

Google Scholar 
41.Capmourteres, V. et al. Precision conservation meets precision agriculture: a case study from southern Ontario. Agric. Syst. 167, 176–185 (2018).
Google Scholar 
42.Census of Agriculture (USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service, 2019); www.nass.usda.gov/AgCensus43.Ray, D. K., Gerber, J. S., Macdonald, G. K. & West, P. C. Climate variation explains a third of global crop yield variability. Nat. Commun. 6, 5989 (2015).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
44.Ramankutty, N., Evan, A. T., Monfreda, C. & Foley, J. A. Farming the planet: 1. Geographic distribution of global agricultural lands in the year 2000. Global Biogeochem. Cycles 22, GB1003 (2008).
Google Scholar 
45.PRISM Climate Data (PRISM Climate Group, 2004) http://www.prism.oregonstate.edu/46.Miller, P., Lanier, W. & Brandt, S. Using Growing Degree Days to Predict Plant Stages (Montana State University, 2001); http://store.msuextension.org/publications/AgandNaturalResources/MT200103AG.pdf47.agweather connection (Mesonet, 2007); https://www.mesonet.org/mesonet_connection/V2_No8.pdf48.Corn Growing Degree Days (NDAWN: North Dakota Agricultural Weather Network, 2017); https://ndawn.ndsu.nodak.edu/help-corn-growing-degree-days.html49.Gridded Soil Survey Geographic (gSSURGO) Database for the Conterminous United States (US Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2014); https://gdg.sc.egov.usda.gov/50.Dobos, R. R., Sinclair, H. R., Jr & Robotham, M. P. User Guide for the National Commodity Crop Productivity Index (NCCPI, 2012).51.Plexida, S. G., Sfougaris, A. I., Ispikoudis, I. P. & Papanastasis, V. P. Selecting landscape metrics as indicators of spatial heterogeneity—a comparison among Greek landscapes. Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinf. 26, 26–35 (2014).ADS 

Google Scholar 
52.Schindler, S., Poirazidis, K. & Wrbka, T. Towards a core set of landscape metrics for biodiversity assessments: a case study from Dadia National Park, Greece. Ecol. Indic. 8, 502–514 (2008).
Google Scholar 
53.Turner, M. G. Spatial and temporal analysis of landscape patterns. Landsc. Ecol. 4, 21–30 (1990).
Google Scholar 
54.Li, H. & Wu, J. Use and misuse of landscape indices. Landsc. Ecol. 19, 389–399 (2004).
Google Scholar 
55.Hesselbarth, M. H., Sciaini, M., With, K. A., Wiegand, K. & Nowosad, J. landscapemetrics: an open-source R tool to calculate landscape metrics. Ecography 42, 1–10 (2019).
Google Scholar 
56.R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2017); https://www.R-project.org/57.Rue, H., Martino, S. & Chopin, N. Approximate Bayesian inference for latent Gaussian models by using integrated nested Laplace approximations. J. R. Stat. Soc. Series B Stat. Methodol. 71, 319–392 (2009).MathSciNet 
MATH 

Google Scholar 
58.Blanc, E. & Schlenker, W. The use of panel models in assessments of climate impacts on agriculture. Rev. Environ. Econ. Policy 11, 258–279 (2017).
Google Scholar 
59.Level III Ecoregions of the Continental United States (US Environmental Protection Agency, 2011); https://www.epa.gov/eco-research/level-iii-and-iv-ecoregions-continental-united-states60.Bakka, H. et al. Spatial modeling with R-INLA: a review. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Comput. Stat. 10, e1443 (2018).MathSciNet 

Google Scholar 
61.2018 Cartographic Boundary Files [data set] (US Census Bureau, 2018); https://www.census.gov/geographies/mapping-files/time-series/geo/carto-boundary-file.html More

1.Bourne DG, Morrow KM, Webster NS. Insights into the coral microbiome: underpinning the health and resilience of reef ecosystems. Annu Rev Microbiol. 2016;70:317–40.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
2.Ainsworth TD, Thurber RV, Gates RD. The future of coral reefs: a microbial perspective. Trends Ecol Evol. 2010;25:233–40.PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
3.Huettel M, Wild C, Gonelli S. Mucus trap in coral reefs: formation and temporal evolution of particle aggregates caused by coral mucus. Mar Ecol Prog Ser. 2006;307:69–84.Article 

Google Scholar 
4.Coffroth M. Mucous sheet formation on poritid corals: an evaluation of coral mucus as a nutrient source on reefs. Mar Biol. 1990;105:39–49.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
5.Brown BE, Bythell JC. Perspectives on mucus secretion in reef corals. Mar Ecol Prog Ser. 2005;296:291–309.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
6.Sweet M, Croquer A, Bythell J. Bacterial assemblages differ between compartments within the coral holobiont. Coral Reefs. 2011;30:39–52.Article 

Google Scholar 
7.Yancey PH. Organic osmolytes as compatible, metabolic and counteracting cytoprotectants in high osmolarity and other stresses. J Exp Biol. 2005;208:2819–30.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
8.Burg MB, Ferraris JD. Intracellular organic osmolytes: function and regulation. J Biol Chem. 2008;283:7309–13.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
9.Singh LR, Dar TA, editors. Cellular osmolytes: from chaperoning protein folding to clinical perspectives. 1st ed. Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.; 2017.10.Yancey PH, Heppenstall M, Ly S, Andrell RM, Gates RD, Carter VL, et al. Betaines and dimethylsulfoniopropionate as major osmolytes in cnidaria with endosymbiotic dinoflagellates. Physiol Biochem Zool. 2010;83:167–73.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
11.Mayfield AB, Gates RD. Osmoregulation in anthozoan—dinoflagellate symbiosis. Compar Biochem Physiol A. 2007;147:1–10.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
12.Rublee PA, Lasker HR, Gottfried M, Roman MR. Production and bacterial colonization of mucus from the soft coral Briarium asbestinum. Bull Mar Sci. 1980;30:888–93.
Google Scholar 
13.Wild C, Woyt H, Huettel M. Influence of coral mucus on nutrient fluxes in carbonate sands. Mar Ecol Prog Ser. 2005;287:87–98.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
14.Coles SL, Strathmann R. Observations on coral mucus “flocs” and their potential trophic significance. Limnol Oceanogr. 1973;18:673–8.Article 

Google Scholar 
15.Pernice M, Raina J-B, Rädecker N, Cárdenas A, Pogoreutz C, Voolstra CR. Down to the bone: the role of overlooked endolithic microbiomes in reef coral health. ISME J. 2020;14:325–34.PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
16.Falini G, Fermani S, Goffredo S. Coral biomineralization: a focus on intra-skeletal organic matrix and calcification. Semin Cell Dev Biol. 2015;46:17–26.Article 

Google Scholar 
17.Constantz B, Weiner S. Acidic macromolecules associated with the mineral phase of scleractinian coral skeletons. J Exp Zool. 1988;248:253–8.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
18.Muscatine L, Goiran C, Land L, Jaubert J, Cuif JP, Allemand D. Stable isotopes (delta C-13 and delta N-15) of organic matrix from coral skeleton. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2005;102:1525–30.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
19.Sorek M, Díaz-Almeyda EM, Medina M, Levy O. Circadian clocks in symbiotic corals: the duet between Symbiodinium algae and their coral host. Mar Genom. 2014;14:47–57.Article 

Google Scholar 
20.Agostini S, Suzuki Y, Higuchi T, Casareto B, Yoshinaga K, Nakano Y, et al. Biological and chemical characteristics of the coral gastric cavity. Coral Reefs. 2012;31:147–56.Article 

Google Scholar 
21.Rosenberg E, Koren O, Reshef L, Efrony R, Zilber-Rosenberg I. The role of microorganisms in coral health, disease and evolution. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2007;5:355–62.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
22.Ritchie KB. Bacterial symbionts of corals and Symbiodinium. In: Rosenberg E, Gophna U editors. Beneficial microorganisms in multicellular life forms. 1st ed. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg; 2012. pp 139–50.23.Apprill A, Weber LG, Santoro AE. Distinguishing between microbial habitats unravels ecological complexity in coral microbiomes. mSystems. 2016;1:e00143–00116.PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
24.Pollock FJ, McMinds R, Smith S, Bourne DG, Willis BL, Medina M, et al. Coral-associated bacteria demonstrate phylosymbiosis and cophylogeny. Nat Commun. 2018;9:1–13.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
25.Shapiro BJ, Friedman J, Cordero OX, Preheim SP, Timberlake SC, Szabó G, et al. Population genomics of early events in the ecological differentiation of bacteria. Science. 2012;336:48–51.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
26.Youngblut ND, Wirth JS, Henriksen JR, Smith M, Simon H, Metcalf WW, et al. Genomic and phenotypic differentiation among Methanosarcina mazei populations from Columbia River sediment. ISME J. 2015;9:2191–205.PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
27.Wielgoss S, Didelot X, Chaudhuri RR, Liu X, Weedall GD, Velicer GJ, et al. A barrier to homologous recombination between sympatric strains of the cooperative soil bacterium Myxococcus xanthus. ISME J. 2016;10:2468–77.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
28.Chase AB, Arevalo P, Brodie EL, Polz MF, Karaoz U, Martiny JB. Maintenance of sympatric and allopatric populations in free-living terrestrial bacteria. Mbio. 2019;10:e02361–02319.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
29.Huggett MJ, Apprill A. Coral microbiome database: integration of sequences reveals high diversity and relatedness of coral-associated microbes. Environ Microbiol Rep. 2019;11:372–85.PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
30.Apprill A, Marlow HQ, Martindale MQ, Rappe MS. The onset of microbial associations in the coral Pocillopora meandrina. ISME J. 2009;3:685–99.PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
31.Epstein HE, Torda G, Munday PL, van Oppen MJH. Parental and early life stage environments drive establishment of bacterial and dinoflagellate communities in a common coral. ISME J. 2019;13:1635–8.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
32.Freire I, Gutner-Hoch E, Muras A, Benayahu Y, Otero A. The effect of bacteria on planula-larvae settlement and metamorphosis in the octocoral Rhytisma fulvum fulvum. PLoS ONE. 2019;14:e0223214.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
33.Miura N, Motone K, Takagi T, Aburaya S, Watanabe S, Aoki W, et al. Ruegeria sp. strains isolated from the reef-building coral Galaxea fascicularis inhibit growth of the temperature-dependent pathogen Vibrio coralliilyticus. Mar Biotechnol. 2019;21:1–8.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
34.Apprill A, Hughen K, Mincer T. Major similarities in the bacterial communities associated with lesioned and healthy Fungiidae corals. Environ Microbiol. 2013;15:2063–72.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
35.Sekar R, Kaczmarsky LT, Richardson LL. Microbial community composition of black band disease on the coral host Siderastrea siderea from three regions of the wider Caribbean. Mar Ecol Prog Ser. 2008;362:85–98.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
36.Casey JM, Connolly SR, Ainsworth TD. Coral transplantation triggers shift in microbiome and promotion of coral disease associated potential pathogens. Sci Rep. 2015;5:11903–11903.PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
37.Tsang RHL, Ang PO. Resistance to temperature stress and Drupella corallivory may promote the dominance of Platygyra acuta in the marginal coral communities in Hong Kong. Mar Environ Res. 2019;144:20–27.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
38.Tam TW, Ang PO Jr. Repeated physical disturbances and the stability of sub‐tropical coral communities in Hong Kong, China. Aquat Conserv. 2008;18:1005–24.Article 

Google Scholar 
39.Ang Jr PO, Choi LS, Choi MM, Cornish A, Fung HL, Lee MW et al. Hong Kong. In: Centre JWR editors. Status of coral reefs of the East Asian Seas region: 2004. Tokyo: Ministry of the Environment; 2005. pp 121–52.40.Luo H, Moran MA. Evolutionary ecology of the marine Roseobacter clade. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev. 2014;78:573–87.PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
41.Pujalte MJ, Lucena T, Ruvira MA, Arahal DR, Macián MC. The family Rhodobacteraceae. In: Rosenberg E, DeLong EF, Lory S, Stackebrandt E, Thompson F editors. The Prokaryotes: alphaproteobacteria and Betaproteobacteria. 4th ed. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg; 2014. pp 439–512.42.Johannes RE, Wiebe WJ. Method for determination of coral tissue biomass and composition. Limnol Oceanogr. 1970;15:822–4.Article 

Google Scholar 
43.Emms DM, Kelly S. OrthoFinder: phylogenetic orthology inference for comparative genomics. Genome Biol. 2019;20:1–14.Article 

Google Scholar 
44.Nguyen LT, Schmidt HA, von Haeseler A, Minh BQ. IQ-TREE: a fast and effective stochastic algorithm for estimating maximum-likelihood phylogenies. Mol Biol Evol. 2015;32:268–74.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
45.Achtman M, Wagner M. Microbial diversity and the genetic nature of microbial species. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2008;6:431–40.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
46.Feil EJ, Spratt BG. Recombination and the population structures of bacterial pathogens. Annu Rev Microbiol. 2001;55:561–90.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
47.Wang X, Zhang Y, Ren M, Xia T, Chu X, Liu C, et al. Cryptic speciation of a pelagic Roseobacter population varying at a few thousand nucleotide sites. ISME J. 2020;14:3106–19.48.Lawson DJ, Hellenthal G, Myers S, Falush D. Inference of population structure using dense haplotype data. PLoS Genet. 2012;8:e1002453.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
49.Didelot X, Wilson DJ. ClonalFrameML: efficient inference of recombination in whole bacterial genomes. PLoS Comput Biol. 2015;11:e1004041.PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
50.Excoffier L, Lischer HE. Arlequin suite ver 3.5: a new series of programs to perform population genetics analyses under Linux and Windows. Mol Ecol Resour. 2010;10:564–7.PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
51.Sun Y, Luo H. Homologous recombination in core genomes facilitates marine bacterial adaptation. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2018;84:e02545–02517.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
52.Librado P, Vieira FG, Rozas J. BadiRate: estimating family turnover rates by likelihood-based methods. Bioinformatics. 2011;28:279–81.PubMed 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
53.Slatkin M, Maddison WP. A cladistic measure of gene flow inferred from the phylogenies of alleles. Genetics 1989;123:603–13.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
54.Jain C, Rodriguez-R LM, Phillippy AM, Konstantinidis KT, Aluru S. High throughput ANI analysis of 90K prokaryotic genomes reveals clear species boundaries. Nat Commun. 2018;9:1–8.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
55.Lohr KE, Khattri RB, Guingab-Cagmat J, Camp EF, Merritt ME, Garrett TJ, et al. Metabolomic profiles differ among unique genotypes of a threatened Caribbean coral. Sci Rep. 2019;9:1–11.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
56.Hill R, Li C, Jones A, Gunn J, Frade P. Abundant betaines in reef-building corals and ecological indicators of a photoprotective role. Coral Reefs. 2010;29:869–80.Article 

Google Scholar 
57.Gowrishankar J. Nucleotide sequence of the osmoregulatory proU operon of Escherichia coli. J Bacteriol. 1989;171:1923–31.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
58.Chandravanshi M, Gogoi P, Kanaujia SP. Computational characterization of TTHA0379: A potential glycerophosphocholine binding protein of Ugp ATP-binding cassette transporter. Gene. 2016;592:260–8.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
59.Ziegler C, Bremer E, Krämer R. The BCCT family of carriers: from physiology to crystal structure. Mol Microbiol. 2010;78:13–34.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
60.Geiger O, López-Lara IM, Sohlenkamp C. Phosphatidylcholine biosynthesis and function in bacteria. Biochim Biophys Acta Mol Cell Biol Lipids. 2013;1831:503–13.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
61.Lidbury I, Kimberley G, Scanlan DJ, Murrell JC, Chen Y. Comparative genomics and mutagenesis analyses of choline metabolism in the marine Roseobacter clade. Environ Microbiol. 2015;17:5048–62.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
62.Thole S, Kalhoefer D, Voget S, Berger M, Engelhardt T, Liesegang H, et al. Phaeobacter gallaeciensis genomes from globally opposite locations reveal high similarity of adaptation to surface life. ISME J. 2012;6:2229–44.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
63.Wang Z, Klipfell E, Bennett BJ, Koeth R, Levison BS, DuGar B, et al. Gut flora metabolism of phosphatidylcholine promotes cardiovascular disease. Nature. 2011;472:57–63.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
64.Jones M, Talfournier F, Bobrov A, Grossmann JG, Vekshin N, Sutcliffe MJ, et al. Electron transfer and conformational change in complexes of trimethylamine dehydrogenase and electron transferring flavoprotein. J Biol Chem. 2002;277:8457–65.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
65.Chen Y. Comparative genomics of methylated amine utilization by marine Roseobacter clade bacteria and development of functional gene markers (tmm, gmaS). Environ Microbiol. 2012;14:2308–22.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
66.Schäfer H, McDonald IR, Nightingale PD, Murrell JC. Evidence for the presence of a CmuA methyltransferase pathway in novel marine methyl halide‐oxidizing bacteria. Environ Microbiol. 2005;7:839–52.PubMed 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
67.McNicholas PM, Chiang RC, Gunsalus RP. Anaerobic regulation of the Escherichia coli dmsABC operon requires the molybdate‐responsive regulator ModE. Mol Microbiol. 1998;27:197–208.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
68.Loschi L, Brokx SJ, Hills TL, Zhang G, Bertero MG, Lovering AL, et al. Structural and biochemical identification of a novel bacterial oxidoreductase. J Biol Chem. 2004;279:50391–50400.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
69.Hillyer KE, Dias DA, Lutz A, Wilkinson SP, Roessner U, Davy SK. Metabolite profiling of symbiont and host during thermal stress and bleaching in the coral Acropora aspera. Coral Reefs. 2017;36:105–18.Article 

Google Scholar 
70.Rösgen J. Molecular basis of osmolyte effects on protein and metabolites. Methods Enzymol. 2007;428:459–86.PubMed 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
71.Cunliffe M. Correlating carbon monoxide oxidation with cox genes in the abundant marine Roseobacter clade. ISME J. 2011;5:685–91.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
72.Bartling P, Vollmers J, Petersen J. The first world swimming championships of Roseobacters—phylogenomic insights into an exceptional motility phenotype. Syst Appl Microbiol. 2018;41:544–54.PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
73.Michael V, Frank O, Bartling P, Scheuner C, Goker M, Brinkmann H, et al. Biofilm plasmids with a rhamnose operon are widely distributed determinants of the ‘swim-or-stick’ lifestyle in roseobacters. ISME J. 2016;10:2498–513.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
74.Armitage JP. Behavioural responses of bacteria to light and oxygen. Arch Microbiol. 1997;168:249–61.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
75.Jorgensen NOG. Uptake of urea by estuarine bacteria. Aquat Micro Ecol. 2006;42:227–42.Article 

Google Scholar 
76.Pernice M, Raina J-B, Rädecker N, Cárdenas A, Pogoreutz C, Voolstra CR. Down to the bone: the role of overlooked endolithic microbiomes in reef coral health. ISME J. 2019: 1–10.77.Krajewska B, Ureases I. Functional, catalytic and kinetic properties: a review. J Mol Catal B Enzym. 2009;59:9–21.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
78.Cheng L, Cord-Ruwisch R. In situ soil cementation with ureolytic bacteria by surface percolation. Ecol Eng. 2012;42:64–72.Article 

Google Scholar 
79.Cho BC, Park MG, Shim JH, Azam F. Significance of bacteria in urea dynamics in coastal surface waters. Mar Ecol Prog Ser. 1996;142:19–26.Article 

Google Scholar 
80.Jin D, Zhao SG, Zheng N, Beckers Y, Wang JQ. Urea metabolism and regulation by rumen bacterial urease in ruminants—a review. Ann Anim Sci. 2018;18:303–18.Article 

Google Scholar 
81.Collier JL, Baker KM, Bell SL. Diversity of urea-degrading microorganisms in open-ocean and estuarine planktonic communities. Environ Microbiol. 2009;11:3118–31.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
82.Biscéré T, Ferrier-Pagès C, Grover R, Gilbert A, Rottier C, Wright A, et al. Enhancement of coral calcification via the interplay of nickel and urease. Aquat Toxicol. 2018;200:247–56.PubMed 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
83.Crossland C, Barnes D. The role of metabolic nitrogen in coral calcification. Mar Biol. 1974;28:325–32.CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
84.Goodkin NF, Switzer AD, Mccorry D, Devantier L, True J, Hughen KA, et al. Coral communities of Hong Kong: long-lived corals in a marginal reef environment. Mar Ecol Prog Ser. 2011;426:185–96.Article 

Google Scholar 
85.Bernasconi R, Stat M, Koenders A, Paparini A, Bunce M, Huggett MJ. Establishment of coral-bacteria symbioses reveal changes in the core bacterial community with host ontogeny. Front Mirobiol. 2019;10:1529.Article 

Google Scholar 
86.Chu X, Li S, Wang S, Luo D, Luo H. Gene loss through pseudogenization contributes to the ecological diversification of a generalist Roseobacter lineage. ISME J. 2020;15:489–502.PubMed 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
87.Gardner SN, Slezak T, Hall BG. kSNP3. 0: SNP detection and phylogenetic analysis of genomes without genome alignment or reference genome. Bioinformatics. 2015;31:2877–8.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
88.Krzywinski M, Schein JE, Birol I, Connors JM, Gascoyne RD, Horsman D, et al. Circos: an information aesthetic for comparative genomics. Genome Res. 2009;19:1639–45.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar  More

1.Körner, C. Alpine Plant Life: Functional Plant Ecology of High Mountain Ecosystems; with 47 Tables. (Springer Science & Business Media, 2003).2.Alexander, J. M. et al. Plant invasions into mountains and alpine ecosystems: current status and future challenges. Alp. Bot. 126, 89–103 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
3.Xu, J. et al. The Melting Himalayas: cascading effects of climate change on water, biodiversity, and livelihoods. Conserv. Biol. 23, 520–530 (2009).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
4.Liang, Q. et al. Shifts in plant distributions in response to climate warming in a biodiversity hotspot, the Hengduan Mountains. J. Biogeogr. 45, 1334–1344 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
5.Newbold, T. et al. Global effects of land use on local terrestrial biodiversity. Nature 520, 45–50 (2015).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
6.Dullinger, S. et al. Extinction debt of high-mountain plants under twenty-first-century climate change. Nat. Clim. Change 2, 619–622 (2012).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
7.Zhang, D. C., Zhang, Y. H., Boufford, D. E. & Sun, H. Elevational patterns of species richness and endemism for some important taxa in the Hengduan Mountains, southwestern China. Biodivers. Conserv. 18, 699–716 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
8.Tang, Z., Wang, Z., Zheng, C. & Fang, J. Biodiversity in China’s mountains. Front. Ecol. Environ. 4, 347–352 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
9.Lomolino, Mark V. Elevation gradients of species-density: historical and prospective views. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 10, 3–13 (2001).Article 

Google Scholar 
10.Colwell, RobertK. & Lees, D. C. The mid-domain effect: geometric constraints on the geography of species richness. Trends Ecol. Evol. 15, 70–76 (2000).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
11.Dirnböck, T., Essl, F. & Rabitsch, W. Disproportional risk for habitat loss of high-altitude endemic species under climate change. Glob. Change Biol. 17, 990–996 (2011).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
12.Su, X., Han, W., Liu, G., Zhang, Y. & Lu, H. Substantial gaps between the protection of biodiversity hotspots in alpine grasslands and the effectiveness of protected areas on the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau, China. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 278, 15–23 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
13.Zhang, Y. et al. Spatial phylogenetics of two topographic extremes of the Hengduan Mountains in southwestern China and its implications for biodiversity conservation. Plant Divers. (2020) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pld.2020.09.001.14.Hopping, K. A., Knapp, A. K., Dorji, T. & Klein, J. A. Warming and land use change concurrently erode ecosystem services in Tibet. Glob. Change Biol. 24, 5534–5548 (2018).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
15.Trivedi, M. R., Berry, P. M., Morecroft, M. D. & Dawson, T. P. Spatial scale affects bioclimate model projections of climate change impacts on mountain plants. Glob. Change Biol. 14, 1089–1103 (2008).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
16.Gavin, D. G. et al. Climate refugia: joint inference from fossil records, species distribution models and phylogeography. N. Phytol. 204, 37–54 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
17.Birks, H. J. B. et al. Does pollen-assemblage richness reflect floristic richness? A review of recent developments and future challenges. Rev. Palaeobot. Palynol. 228, 1–25 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
18.Parducci, L. et al. Ancient plant DNA in lake sediments. N. Phytol. 214, 924–942 (2017).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
19.Kramer, A., Herzschuh, U., Mischke, S. & Zhang, C. Late glacial vegetation and climate oscillations on the southeastern Tibetan Plateau inferred from the Lake Naleng pollen profile. Quat. Res. 73, 324–335 (2010).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
20.Kramer, A., Herzschuh, U., Mischke, S. & Zhang, C. Holocene treeline shifts and monsoon variability in the Hengduan Mountains (southeastern Tibetan Plateau), implications from palynological investigations. Palaeogeogr. Palaeoclimatol. Palaeoecol. 286, 23–41 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
21.Hou, G., Yang, P., Cao, G., Chongyi, E. & Wang, Q. Vegetation evolution and human expansion on the Qinghai–Tibet Plateau since the Last Deglaciation. Quat. Int. 430, 82–93 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
22.Chen, F. et al. Climate change, vegetation history, and landscape responses on the Tibetan Plateau during the Holocene: a comprehensive review. Quat. Sci. Rev. 243, 106444 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
23.Singh, U. M., Gupta, V., Rao, V. P., Sengar, R. S. & Yadav, M. K. A review on biological activities and conservation of endangered medicinal herb Nardostachys jatamansi. Int. J. Med. Arom. Plants 3, 113–124 (2013).CAS 

Google Scholar 
24.Li, X. H., Zhu, X. X., Niu, Y. & Sun, H. Phylogenetic clustering and overdispersion for alpine plants along elevational gradient in the Hengduan Mountains Region, southwest China: Phylogenetic structure along elevational gradient. J. Syst. Evol. 52, 280–288 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
25.Kanz, C. et al. The EMBL nucleotide sequence database. Nucleic Acids Res. 33, D29–D33 (2005).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
26.Yu, H. et al. Contrasting floristic diversity of the Hengduan mountains, the Himalayas and the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau Sensu Stricto in China. Front. Ecol. Evol. 8 (2020).27.Scheiner, S. M. et al. The underpinnings of the relationship of species richness with space and time. Ecol. Monogr. 81, 195–213 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
28.Milner, A. M. et al. Glacier shrinkage driving global changes in downstream systems. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, 9770–9778 (2017).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
29.Opitz, S., Zhang, C., Herzschuh, U. & Mischke, S. Climate variability on the south-eastern Tibetan Plateau since the Lateglacial based on a multiproxy approach from Lake Naleng – comparing pollen and non-pollen signals. Quat. Sci. Rev. 115, 112–122 (2015).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
30.Laliberté, E. et al. How does pedogenesis drive plant diversity? Trends Ecol. Evol. 28, 331–340 (2013).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
31.Nichols, R. V. et al. Minimizing polymerase biases in metabarcoding. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 18, 927–939 (2018).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
32.Alsos, I. G. et al. Plant DNA metabarcoding of lake sediments: How does it represent the contemporary vegetation. PLoS ONE 13, e0195403 (2018).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
33.Niemeyer, B., Epp, L. S., Stoof-Leichsenring, K. R., Pestryakova, L. A. & Herzschuh, U. A comparison of sedimentary DNA and pollen from lake sediments in recording vegetation composition at the Siberian treeline. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 17, e46–e62 (2017).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
34.Stein, A., Gerstner, K. & Kreft, H. Environmental heterogeneity as a universal driver of species richness across taxa, biomes and spatial scales. Ecol. Lett. 17, 866–880 (2014).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
35.Chen, F. H. et al. Agriculture facilitated permanent human occupation of the Tibetan Plateau after 3600 B.P. Science 347, 248–250 (2015).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
36.Group, M. R. I. E. W. et al. Elevation-dependent warming in mountain regions of the world. Nat. Clim. Change 5, 424–430 (2015).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
37.Liang, E. et al. Species interactions slow warming-induced upward shifts of treelines on the Tibetan Plateau. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, 4380–4385 (2016).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
38.Alexander, J. M. et al. Lags in the response of mountain plant communities to climate change. Glob. Change Biol. 24, 563–579 (2018).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
39.Zu, K. et al. Altitudinal biodiversity patterns of seed plants along Gongga Mountain in the southeastern Qinghai–Tibetan Plateau. Ecol. Evol. 9, 9586–9596 (2019).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
40.Sun, H., Zhang, J., Deng, T. & Boufford, D. E. Origins and evolution of plant diversity in the Hengduan Mountains, China. Plant Divers. 39, 161–166 (2017).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
41.Wiens, J. A., Stralberg, D., Jongsomjit, D., Howell, C. A. & Snyder, M. A. Niches, models, and climate change: assessing the assumptions and uncertainties. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. 106, 19729–19736 (2009).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
42.Kramer, A., Herzschuh, U., Mischke, S. & Zhang, C. Late Quaternary environmental history of the south-eastern Tibetan Plateau inferred from the Lake Naleng non-pollen palynomorph record. Veg. Hist. Archaeobotany 19, 453–468 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
43.Stuiver, M. & Reimer, P. J. Extended 14C Data Base and Revised CALIB 3.0 14C Age Calibration Program. Radiocarbon 35, 215–230 (1993).Article 

Google Scholar 
44.Intcal04 Terrestrial Radiocarbon Age Calibration, 0–26 Cal Kyr BP. Radiocarbon 46, 1029–1058 (2004).45.Taberlet, P. et al. Power and limitations of the chloroplast trnL (UAA) intron for plant DNA barcoding. Nucleic Acids Res. 35, e14–e14 (2007).PubMed 
Article 
CAS 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
46.Coissac, E. OligoTag: A Program for Designing Sets of Tags for Next-Generation Sequencing of Multiplexed Samples. in Data Production and Analysis in Population Genomics: Methods and Protocols (eds. Pompanon, F. & Bonin, A.) 13–31 (Humana Press, 2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-61779-870-2_2.47.De Barba, M. et al. DNA metabarcoding multiplexing and validation of data accuracy for diet assessment: application to omnivorous diet. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 14, 306–323 (2014).PubMed 
Article 
CAS 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
48.Boyer, F. et al. obitools: a unix-inspired software package for DNA metabarcoding. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 16, 176–182 (2016).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
49.SøNstebø, J. H. et al. Using next-generation sequencing for molecular reconstruction of past Arctic vegetation and climate: TECHNICAL ADVANCES. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 10, 1009–1018 (2010).PubMed 
Article 
CAS 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
50.Willerslev, E. et al. Fifty thousand years of Arctic vegetation and megafaunal diet. Nature 506, 47–51 (2014).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
51.Soininen, E. M. et al. Highly overlapping winter diet in two sympatric lemming species revealed by DNA metabarcoding. PLoS ONE 10, e0115335 (2015).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
52.Ficetola, G. F. et al. Replication levels, false presences and the estimation of the presence/absence from eDNA metabarcoding data. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 15, 543–556 (2015).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
53.R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. (2019).54.Brach, A. R. & Song, H. eFloras: New directions for online floras exemplified by the Flora of China Project. TAXON 55, 188–192 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
55.Zhao, Y. et al. Evolution of vegetation and climate variability on the Tibetan Plateau over the past 1.74 million years. Sci. Adv. 6, eaay6193 (2020).56.Herzschuh, U. et al. Position and orientation of the westerly jet determined Holocene rainfall patterns in China. Nat. Commun. 10, 2376 (2019).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
57.Shakun, J. D. et al. Global warming preceded by increasing carbon dioxide concentrations during the last deglaciation. Nature 484, 49–54 (2012).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
58.Marcott, S. A., Shakun, J. D., Clark, P. U. & Mix, A. C. A reconstruction of regional and global temperature for the past 11,300 years. Science 339, 1198–1201 (2013).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
59.Kessler, M. A., Anderson, R. S. & Stock, G. M. Modeling topographic and climatic control of east-west asymmetry in Sierra Nevada glacier length during the Last Glacial Maximum. J. Geophys. Res. Earth Surf. 111, F02002 (2006).60.Pfeffer, W. T. et al. The Randolph Glacier Inventory: a globally complete inventory of glaciers. J. Glaciol. 60, 537–552 (2014).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
61.Braithwaite, R. J. From Doktor Kurowski’s Schneegrenze to our modern glacier equilibrium line altitude (ELA). Cryosphere 9, 2135–2148 (2015).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
62.Maussion, F. et al. Precipitation seasonality and variability over the Tibetan Plateau as resolved by the high asia reanalysis. J. Clim. 27, 1910–1927 (2014).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
63.Anja, M.-C. et al. GPCC Climatology Version 2011 at 0.25°: Monthly Land-Surface Precipitation Climatology for Every Month and the Total Year from Rain-Gauges built on GTS-based and Historic Data. https://doi.org/10.5676/DWD_GPCC/CLIM_M_V2011_025.64.Yuzhong, Y., Qingbai, W. & Hanbo, Y. Stable isotope variations in the ground ice of Beiluhe Basin on the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau. Quat. Int. 313–314, 85–91 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
65.Li, X. et al. Near-surface air temperature lapse rates in the mainland China during 1962–2011. J. Geophys. Res. Atmospheres 118, 7505–7515 (2013).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
66.Revelle, W. psych: Procedures for Personality and Psychological Research, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois, USA. Northwest. Univ. (2018).67.Zimmermann, H. H. et al. Sedimentary ancient DNA and pollen reveal the composition of plant organic matter in Late Quaternary permafrost sediments of the Buor Khaya Peninsula (north-eastern Siberia). Biogeosciences Discuss. 1–50 (2016) https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-2016-386.68.Oksanen, J. et al. vegan: Community Ecology Package. (2019).69.Hallett, L. M. et al. codyn: An r package of community dynamics metrics. Methods Ecol. Evol. 7, 1146–1151 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
70.Barbosa, A. M., Brown, J. A., Jimenez-Valverde, A. & Real, R. modEvA: Model Evaluation and Analysis. R package version 1.3.2. (2016).71.Kuhn, M. caret: Classification and Regression Training. R package version 6.0–86. (2020). More

1.Lawrence, M. G. et al. Evaluating climate geoengineering proposals in the context of the Paris Agreement temperature goals. Nat. Commun. 9, 3734 (2018).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
2.MacMartin, D. G., Ricke, K. L. & Keith, D. W. Solar geoengineering as part of an overall strategy for meeting the 1.5 °C Paris target. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 376, 20160454 (2018).ADS 

Google Scholar 
3.Crutzen, P. J. Albedo enhancement by stratospheric sulfur injections: a contribution to resolve a policy dilemma? Climatic Change 77, 211–220 (2006).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
4.Ahlm, L. et al. Marine cloud brightening—as effective without clouds. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 17, 13071–13087 (2017).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
5.Muri, H. et al. Climate response to aerosol geoengineering: a multimethod comparison. J. Clim. 31, 6319–6340 (2018).ADS 

Google Scholar 
6.Kravitz, B. et al. The Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP). Atmos. Sci. Lett. 12, 162–167 (2011).ADS 

Google Scholar 
7.Robock, A., Oman, L. & Stenchikov, G. L. Regional climate responses to geoengineering with tropical and Arctic SO2 injections. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 113, D16101 (2008).ADS 

Google Scholar 
8.Tjiputra, J. F., Grini, A. & Lee, H. Impact of idealized future stratospheric aerosol injection on the large-scale ocean and land carbon cycles. J. Geophys. Res. Biogeosci. 121, 2015JG003045 (2016).
Google Scholar 
9.Russell, L. M. et al. Ecosystem impacts of geoengineering: a review for developing a science plan. Ambio 41, 350–369 (2012).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
10.Xia, L. et al. Solar radiation management impacts on agriculture in China: a case study in the Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP). J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 119, 8695–8711 (2014).ADS 

Google Scholar 
11.Zhan, P., Zhu, W., Zhang, T., Cui, X. & Li, N. Impacts of sulfate geoengineering on rice yield in china: results from a multimodel ensemble. Earth Future 7, 395–410 (2019).ADS 

Google Scholar 
12.Parkes, B., Challinor, A. & Nicklin, K. Crop failure rates in a geoengineered climate: impact of climate change and marine cloud brightening. Environ. Res. Lett. 10, 084003 (2015).13.Yang, H. et al. Potential negative consequences of geoengineering on crop production: a study of Indian groundnut. Geophys. Res. Lett. 43, 11786–11795 (2016).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
14.Pongratz, J., Lobell, D. B., Cao, L. & Caldeira, K. Crop yields in a geoengineered climate. Nat. Clim. Change 2, 101–105 (2012).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
15.Proctor, J., Hsiang, S., Burney, J., Burke, M. & Schlenker, W. Estimating global agricultural effects of geoengineering using volcanic eruptions. Nature 560, 480–483 (2018).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
16.Tjiputra, J. F. et al. Evaluation of the carbon cycle components in the Norwegian Earth System Model (NorESM). Geosci. Model Dev. 6, 301–325 (2013).ADS 

Google Scholar 
17.MacMartin, D. G. & Kravitz, B. Mission-driven research for stratospheric aerosol geoengineering. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 1089–1094 (2019).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
18.Lombardozzi, D. L. et al. Simulating agriculture in the community land model version 5. J. Geophys. Res. Biogeosci. 125, e2019JG005529 (2020).ADS 

Google Scholar 
19.Popp, A. et al. Land-use futures in the shared socio-economic pathways. Glob. Environ. Change 42, 331–345 (2017).
Google Scholar 
20.O’Neill, B. C. et al. The scenario model intercomparison project (ScenarioMIP) for CMIP6. Geosci. Model Dev. 9, 3461–3482 (2016).ADS 

Google Scholar 
21.IPCC Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis (eds Stocker, T. F. et al.) (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2013).22.FAOSTAT (FAO, 2019); http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/?#data/QC23.Tai, A. P. K., Martin, M. V. & Heald, C. L. Threat to future global food security from climate change and ozone air pollution. Nat. Clim. Change 4, 817–821 (2014).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
24.Hsiao, J., Swann, A. L. S. & Kim, S.-H. Maize yield under a changing climate: the hidden role of vapor pressure deficit. Agric. For. Meteorol. 279, 107692 (2019).ADS 

Google Scholar 
25.Grossiord, C. et al. Plant responses to rising vapor pressure deficit. New Phytol. https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.16485 (2020).26.Rigden, A. J., Mueller, N. D., Holbrook, N. M., Pillai, N. & Huybers, P. Combined influence of soil moisture and atmospheric evaporative demand is important for accurately predicting US maize yields. Nat. Food 1, 127–133 (2020).
Google Scholar 
27.Konings, A. G., Williams, A. P. & Gentine, P. Sensitivity of grassland productivity to aridity controlled by stomatal and xylem regulation. Nat. Geosci. 10, 284–288 (2017).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
28.Novick, K. A. et al. The increasing importance of atmospheric demand for ecosystem water and carbon fluxes. Nat. Clim. Change 6, 1023–1027 (2016).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
29.Ainsworth, E. A. & Long, S. P. What have we learned from 15 years of free-air CO2 enrichment (FACE)? A meta-analytic review of the responses of photosynthesis, canopy properties and plant production to rising CO2: Tansley review. New Phytol. 165, 351–372 (2004).
Google Scholar 
30.Bishop, K. A., Leakey, A. D. B. & Ainsworth, E. A. How seasonal temperature or water inputs affect the relative response of C3 crops to elevated CO2: a global analysis of open top chamber and free air CO2 enrichment studies. Food Energy Secur. 3, 33–45 (2014).
Google Scholar 
31.Ainsworth, E. A. et al. A meta-analysis of elevated CO2 effects on soybean (Glycine max) physiology, growth and yield. Glob. Change Biol. 8, 695–709 (2002).ADS 

Google Scholar 
32.Leakey, A. D. B. Rising atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration and the future of C4 crops for food and fuel. Proc. R. Soc. B 276, 2333–2343 (2009).CAS 

Google Scholar 
33.Ainsworth, E. A. & Rogers, A. The response of photosynthesis and stomatal conductance to rising CO2: mechanisms and environmental interactions. Plant Cell Environ. 30, 258–270 (2007).CAS 

Google Scholar 
34.National Research Council Climate Intervention: Reflecting Sunlight to Cool Earth (National Academies, 2015); https://doi.org/10.17226/1898835.Lutsko, N. J., Seeley, J. T. & Keith, D. W. Estimating impacts and trade-offs in solar geoengineering scenarios with a moist energy balance model. Geophys. Res. Lett. 47, e2020GL087290 (2020).ADS 

Google Scholar 
36.Friedlingstein, P. et al. Uncertainties in CMIP5 climate projections due to carbon cycle feedbacks. J. Clim. 27, 511–526 (2014).ADS 

Google Scholar 
37.Tilmes, S. et al. The hydrological impact of geoengineering in the geoengineering model intercomparison project (GeoMIP). J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 118, 11,036–11,058 (2013).
Google Scholar 
38.Lawrence, D. M. et al. The community land model version 5: description of new features, benchmarking, and impact of forcing uncertainty. J. Adv. Model. Earth Syst. 11, 4245–4287 (2019).ADS 

Google Scholar 
39.Fisher, R. A. et al. Parametric controls on vegetation responses to biogeochemical forcing in the CLM5. J. Adv. Model. Earth Syst. 11, 2879–2895 (2019).ADS 

Google Scholar 
40.Bonan, G. B. et al. Model structure and climate data uncertainty in historical simulations of the terrestrial carbon cycle (1850–2014). Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 33, 1310–1326 (2019).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
41.Osborne, T., Rose, G. & Wheeler, T. Variation in the global-scale impacts of climate change on crop productivity due to climate model uncertainty and adaptation. Agric. For. Meteorol. 170, 183–194 (2013).ADS 

Google Scholar 
42.Peng, B. et al. Improving maize growth processes in the community land model: implementation and evaluation. Agric. For. Meteorol. 250–251, 64–89 (2018).ADS 

Google Scholar 
43.Buzan, J. R. & Huber, M. Moist heat stress on a hotter earth. Annu. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci. 48, 623–655 (2020).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
44.Wieder, W. R. et al. Beyond static benchmarking: using experimental manipulations to evaluate land model assumptions. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 33, 1289–1309 (2019).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
45.Mercado, L. M. et al. Impact of changes in diffuse radiation on the global land carbon sink. Nature 458, 1014–1017 (2009).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
46.Cheng, S. J. et al. Variations in the influence of diffuse light on gross primary productivity in temperate ecosystems. Agric. For. Meteorol. 201, 98–110 (2015).ADS 

Google Scholar 
47.Shao, L. et al. The fertilization effect of global dimming on crop yields is not attributed to an improved light interception. Glob. Change Biol. 26, 1697–1713 (2020).ADS 

Google Scholar 
48.Vattioni, S. et al. Exploring accumulation-mode H2SO4 versus SO2 stratospheric sulfate geoengineering in a sectional aerosol–chemistry–climate model. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 19, 4877–4897 (2019).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
49.Levis, S., Badger, A., Drewniak, B., Nevison, C. & Ren, X. CLMcrop yields and water requirements: avoided impacts by choosing RCP 4.5 over 8.5. Climatic Change 146, 501–515 (2018).ADS 

Google Scholar 
50.Fricko, O. et al. The marker quantification of the Shared Socioeconomic Pathway 2: a middle-of-the-road scenario for the 21st century. Glob. Environ. Change 42, 251–267 (2017).
Google Scholar 
51.Lauvset, S. K., Tjiputra, J. & Muri, H. Climate engineering and the ocean: effects on biogeochemistry and primary production. Biogeosciences 14, 5675–5691 (2017).ADS 

Google Scholar 
52.Hurtt, G. C. et al. Harmonization of land-use scenarios for the period 1500–2100: 600 years of global gridded annual land-use transitions, wood harvest, and resulting secondary lands. Climatic Change 109, 117–161 (2011).ADS 

Google Scholar 
53.West, T. O. et al. Cropland carbon fluxes in the United States: increasing geospatial resolution of inventory-based carbon accounting. Ecol. Appl. 20, 1074–1086 (2010).
Google Scholar 
54.Lobell, D. B., Schlenker, W. & Costa-Roberts, J. Climate trends and global crop production since 1980. Science 333, 616–620 (2011).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
55.Farquhar, G., von Caemmerer, Svon & Berry, J. A biochemical model of photosynthetic CO2 assimilation in leaves of C3 species. Planta 149, 78–90 (1980).CAS 

Google Scholar 
56.Collatz, G. J., Ribas-Carbo, M. & Berry, J. A. Coupled photosynthesis-stomatal conductance model for leaves of C4 plants. Funct. Plant Biol. 19, 519–538 (1992).
Google Scholar 
57.Medlyn, B. E. et al. Reconciling the optimal and empirical approaches to modelling stomatal conductance. Glob. Change Biol. 17, 2134–2144 (2011).ADS 

Google Scholar 
58.Long, S. P., Ainsworth, E. A., Leakey, A. D. B., Nösberger, J. & Ort, D. R. Food for thought: lower-than-expected crop yield stimulation with rising CO2 concentrations. Science 312, 1918–1921 (2006).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
59.The NCAR Command Language (NCL, Version 6.5.0) (UCAR, NCAR, CISL, TDD, 2018); https://doi.org/10.5065/D6WD3XH5 More

After preprocessing the data, methods consisted of spatial analyses to map areas at risk of conflict; statistical analyses to identify the most important factors affecting lion and elephant population numbers; economic analyses to estimate the EAA of building and maintaining mitigation fences in areas under severe and high risk of conflict, and fragmentation analyses to assess the impact of fences on migratory mammal species. We describe each step in detail below (see Supplementary Fig. 2 for a flowchart of the analysis). All spatial data were converted to vectors for analysis to reduce commission errors (when a species is mistakenly thought to be present) when converting the species-range maps from vector to raster. Data preprocessing was carried out using the open source database PostgreSQL 11.4 (https://www.postgresql.org/about/) with the GIS extensions of PostGIS 2.5 (https://postgis.net/); conflict mapping and range fragmentation analyses used PostgreSQL 11.4 and PostGIS 2.5, and Python v. 3.7.060; statistical and economic analyses used R v. 3.6.061; sensitivity analyses used PostgreSQL 11.4 and PostGIS 2.5, and Python v. 3.7.060 and R v. 3.6.061.PreprocessingHuman pressuresHuman pressure layers were independently generated from this study. We used Gridded Population of the World Version 4 (GPWv4) as a layer for human population density62. GPWv4 is a minimally modelled data set consisting of estimates of human population (number of persons per raster grid cell) based on non-spatial population data (i.e., tabular counts of population listed by administrative area) and spatially explicit administrative boundary data. Population input data are collected at the most detailed spatial resolution available from the results of the 2010 round of Population and Housing Censuses. The input data are then extrapolated to 2020 using calculated growth rates to produce future population estimates. A proportional allocation gridding algorithm, utilizing ~13.5 million national and subnational administrative units, assigned population counts to 30 arcsecond (~1 km at the equator) grid cells. The population density rasters were created by dividing the population count raster for a given target year by the land-area raster.We used the most recent version of the Gridded Livestock of the World database63, reflecting the compiled and harmonized subnational livestock distribution data for 2010, to extract information on cattle density. The data set provides global population densities of cattle, buffaloes, horses, sheep, goats, pigs, chickens, and ducks in each land pixel at a spatial resolution of 0.083333 decimal degrees (~10 km at the equator). Detailed livestock census statistics are mined from agricultural yearbooks or through direct contacts with ministries or statistical bureaus. The census statistics are usually found in the form of numbers per administrative unit that must be linked to corresponding geographic information system boundaries. Densities are estimated in each census polygon by dividing the number of animals from the census by the surface area of the administrative unit polygon (estimated in an Albert equal-area projection), corrected by a mask excluding unsuitable areas. Livestock densities were then extracted from the subnational census data and were used as the dependent variable in Random Forest models to estimate a density value in each pixel, based on raster predictor variables.We used spatially detailed crop maps available from the Copernicus Global Land Cover map at ~0.001° (~100 m) resolution64. The land-cover map is a discrete map with ten continuous cover fractions (nine base land-cover classes and seasonal water) to provide spatial information about land for a diversity of applications, including biodiversity conservation. Cropland (as percentage of 100 m pixel that is covered by cropland) refers to cultivated and managed agriculture, but does not include perennial woody crops that are classified under the appropriate forest or shrub land-cover type64. Cropland also refers to both irrigated and rainfed agriculture. The land-cover map was generated by compiling the 5-daily PROBA-V multi-spectral image data with a Ground Sampling Distance of ~0.001° as the primary earth observation data and PROBA-V UTM daily multi-spectral image data with a Ground Sampling Distance of ~0.003° (~300 m) as the secondary earth observation data. Next, the 5-daily PROBA-V 100 m and daily 300 m datasets were fused using a Kalman filtering approach. The global overall accuracy of the product for the base year 2015 was calculated through an independent pre-validation and reached 80%.Species-range mapsUpdated range maps showing current distribution for lions and elephants were provided by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Cat and African Elephant Specialist Groups65. In addition to the range maps, the specialist groups provided information on the number of African lions (2018) and elephants (2016) within sites where they are still extant. We also obtained species-range maps for all terrestrial mammal species in orders Cetartiodactyla, Perissodactyla, Primates, and Carnivora occurring in Africa from the IUCN Red List portal (www.iucnredlist.org/). Mammal species in these orders include migratory mammal species (e.g., the common wildebeest Connochaetes taurinus), which might be negatively affected by mitigation fences, e.g., by potentially blocking migratory routes.Protected areasThe data on protected areas were based on the May 2019 release of the World Database on Protected Areas66 (retrieved from http://www.protectedplanet.net). To prevent overestimation of the area coverage of protected areas caused by overlapping designations, we merged polygons into a single layer. We only included in the analysis IUCN categories Ia (Strict Nature Reserve), Ib (Wilderness Area), II (National Park), III (Natural Monument or Feature), and IV (Habitat/Species Management Area), because we wanted to prevent fences from excluding people from protected areas that had been modified by the interaction of nature and people over time (e.g., V, Protected Landscape/Seascape).Mapping potential risk of conflictA database on the spatial distribution of conflict locations between humans and lions and elephants is not available across Africa. We therefore mapped the most prominent factors known to affect conflict: human population density (for both lion and elephant), crop raiding (elephants), and cattle killing (lions)8. Furthermore, spatial modelling of range contractions in carnivores showed that contractions were significantly more likely in regions with high rural human population density, cattle density, and/or cropland4. Therefore, we only retained areas where human, cattle, and crop densities were in the first decile (in our case, the first decile is the decile with the highest human population, crop, and cattle densities) by PostgreSQL/PostGIS. Using only the highest decile likely resulted in a conservative map of spatial conflict.We further classified areas at the highest potential conflict into low, moderate, high, or severe risk of conflict. Specifically, areas at severe risk of conflict are those where the highest human population, crop, and cattle densities all overlap; areas at high risk of conflict are those with overlaps between the highest densities of human population and either crops or cattle; areas at moderate risk of conflict are the areas where the highest crop and cattle densities overlap; and areas at low risk of conflict are those with only one human pressure, i.e., the highest human population, or crop, or cattle density. The remainder was considered as being at no risk of conflict, as it did not meet any of the above criteria, but note the conservative nature of our analysis (see above).The lion and elephant range maps and the protected area layer were intersected to select all protected areas that contain parts of lion and elephant range and/or were adjacent to the species-range maps. The identified protected areas were then merged with the species-range maps to create a new extended range layer (see for an example in Supplementary Fig. 1). These extended range maps were used (i) to identify potential areas where lions and elephants could be restored, and (ii) to avoid interrupting ecological processes (e.g., migrations) and/or causing unintended consequences (e.g., fragment populations) to other biodiversity in neighbouring protected areas.We then identified areas at risk of conflict by intersecting the extended range map layer for lions and elephants with the classified conflict map. In all cases, the intersections were carried out so that the classified conflict areas were either adjacent to, or within a distance of 10 km from, the edge of the extended range map layer. We set this distance to consider the wide-ranging behaviour of both lions and elephants, to account for the fact that conflict decreases at greater distances from protected area boundaries37,38, and to account for the fact that future human pressures will likely increase before conservation actions take place2.We assessed how robust our results were to commission (where human pressure is mistakenly assumed to exist) and omission (where human pressure is mistakenly assumed to be absent) errors in the human pressure maps by carrying out a sensitivity analysis that randomly varied the distances between the extended range maps and the human pressure maps. We first used Latin hypercube sampling, which is a form of sampling used to reduce the number of runs necessary for a Monte Carlo simulation to achieve a reasonably accurate random distribution67, to randomly vary 100 times the distance values between the extended range and human pressure maps. Specifically, we divided the low, moderate, high, and severe conflict lines into 100 m segments, calculated the minimum distance for each segment to human pressure within a 10, 20, and 30 km buffer distance from the edge of the extended range map layer, and then randomly varied that distance 100 times across ±10% of the value. We then averaged the resulting 100 randomly created distance values for each segment and identified which segments fell outside of the analyzed buffer distances of 10, 20, and 30 km. We tested for 20 and 30 km buffer distances, as we wanted to assess the variability of the fencing distance to different buffer sizes. We also estimated the certainty of lion and elephant presence by identifying segments of the perimeter of the range maps of lion and elephant that overlapped with protected areas. We did this as we had information on certain presence of both species from within protected areas, as opposed to areas extending outside of protected areas.Statistical analysesWe used an information theoretic approach68 and Bayesian information criterion to calculate statistical models. We used generalized linear mixed models with a negative‐binomial error distribution to account for over-dispersed count data and a log‐link function to examine factors affecting lion (n = 77) and elephant (n = 191) population sizes in Africa. Generalized linear mixed models were fitted with both random and fixed effects, to capture the data structure. Country was included as a random intercept to represent the hierarchical structure of the data. All variables listed in Supplementary Table 8 were fitted as fixed effects, i.e., with constant regression coefficients across countries. The site-specific variables were calculated only for sites where lions and elephants are currently present and not for the extended ranges. For transboundary sites that stretch across countries, we used the value for Gross Domestic Product, Conservation expenditure, and the Ibrahim Index of African Governance, for the country making the largest area contribution to the site. We compared and ranked models using the Bayesian information criterion68. To avoid multicollinearity among variables, we only selected variables with the strongest effect on population numbers that correlated at r 0.7 was selected as an input into the modelling process. We assessed each model’s relative probability, using Bayesian information criterion weights and the structural goodness-of-fit from the percentage of deviance explained by the model. We determined the magnitude and direction of the coefficients for the independent variables with multi-model averaging implemented in the R package glmulti69. The relative importance of each predictor variable was measured as the sum of the weights over the six top‐ranked models with Bayesian information criterion values closer to that of the best model containing the parameter of interest. Finally, we used a 10-fold cross-validation (a bootstrap resampling procedure using 1000 iterations) to assess the predictive ability of the top-ranked model.Range fragmentation analysesWe assessed how the proposed mitigation fences affected species-range connectivity by calculating the perimeter length-to-area ratio for mammal species in orders Cetartiodactyla, Perissodactyla, Primates, and Carnivora, whose ranges were identified as intersecting with areas at severe risk of conflict. Minimizing the perimeter length-to-area ratio is an important method of optimizing protected area design, resulting in compact reserves with high connectivity that can enhance persistence of the species. The smaller the ratio, the greater the clumping and connectivity of the species ranges. Specifically, we calculated the ratios of perimeter length to area for the ranges of 20 migratory mammalian species (i) under current conditions without fences and (ii) under future conditions where the identified mitigation fences would pass through their ranges. In the latter case, we used a 20 m buffer around the identified fences to account for further habitat clearance due to maintaining clearances around the fences for management purposes.Economic analysesWe used EAA to estimate the return on investment of building and maintaining mitigation fences to reduce cattle loss and crop damage. EAA calculates the constant annual cash flow generated by a project over its lifespan if it were an annuity and the annuity can then be compared to other projects of similar or different lifespan. Therefore, the measure potentially provides an important means for funders/donors to compare different investment opportunities. EAA is calculated by dividing the NPV of a project by the present value of annuity factor39. We started by calculating NPV in countries with areas at severe and high risk of conflict as:$${{NPV}}={sum }_{i}^{n}frac{{R}_{i}}{{left(1+dright)}^{i}}-Z$$
(1)
where ({R}_{i}) is net cash flow, (d) is the discount rate specific to each country (Supplementary Table 9), n is the number of time periods, (i) is the cash flow period, and (Z) is the initial investment of building the fences. NPV was calculated over a 10-year investment period. ({R}_{i}) was calculated as:$${R}_{i}=B-C$$
(2)
where (B) is the economic benefit derived from mitigation fences and (C) is the cost of maintaining mitigation fences. The economic benefits of mitigation fences for countries with severe risk of conflict refer to the potential reduction in cattle loss (for lions) and crop damage (for elephants) derived from building fences:$$B=L+E$$
(3)
where (L) represents the economic benefits of reducing cattle loss and (E) measures the economic benefits of reducing crop damage. For countries with high risk of conflict, the benefit ((B)) is derived from one or the other, i.e., (B) = (L) or (B) = (E).$$L=v * w * P$$
(4)
where (v) is the number of cattle that are not lost because of the presence of fences, (w) is the average weight in kg of adult cattle in that country, and (P) is the price of meat per kg paid to producers in that country in 2017 (data can be downloaded from http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/PP). (v) was calculated as the percentage of total cattle present in the 10 km buffer adjacent to severe and high conflict areas, which could potentially be killed, based on published estimates across Africa45. Estimates range from 0.8 to 2.6% of cattle losses, and we decided to use a conservative 1% loss in the analysis (see below for how we accounted for uncertainty in model parameters). (w) was based on the average weight of an adult cow with estimates available at a regional level (west Africa: 262 kg; central Africa: 281 kg; east Africa: 283 kg; and southern Africa: 339 kg)70.$$E=left(d * Aright) * y * P$$
(5)
where (d) is the percentage of crop area damaged by elephants; data are taken from published estimates (ranging from 0.2 to 4% and we used a conservative 1% in the analysis)44; (A) is the total area in km2 available as crops in the 10 km buffer adjacent to the areas at severe and high risk of conflict; (y) is the yield (ton/km2) for the crop known to be targeted by elephants (cassava, maize, millet, banana, sorghum, groundnuts)44, which covered the largest area size in that country in 2017 (data calculated from: http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/PP); and (P) is the price per ton paid to producers for that crop in that country in 2017 (data can be downloaded from http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/PP). Although there might be several crops available within the buffer, this information is currently not available at the continental scale. Therefore, we decided to use the most common cultivated crop known to be targeted by elephants in each country.The cost of maintaining mitigation fences ((C)) was calculated as:$$C=f * c$$
(6)
where f is the fence length in that country and (c) is the cost for maintaining the fence. We obtained cost estimates of building (Z) and maintaining ((c)) the fences from Pekor et al.33. We used the median estimated current cost of USD 9522 per km for building fences and the median stated annual budget cost of USD 487 per km for adequate fence inspection and maintenance. This is the most up-to-date information validated through peer review on the costs (converted to 2017 USD) across Africa33. Cost estimates varied across surveyed conservation areas because of fence height and materials but included relevant costs of electrification and predator-proof structures33. The data were collected from 29 partially fenced ( More

The author wishes to thank N. Haan, G. P. Robertson and N. Haddad for their valuable comments. Financial support was provided by USDA/NIFA (awards 2019-67012-29595 and 2015-68007-23133), the US National Science Foundation’s Long-term Ecological Research Program (award 1637653), the US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Office of Biological and Environmental Research (awards DESC0018409 and DE-FC02-07ER64494), and Michigan State University AgBioResearch. More

A clear-cut slope in the Elliott State Forest, Oregon.Credit: Matthew Betts

Despite lingering tensions among environmentalists and loggers, a plan to launch the largest forestry experiment in the United States — and perhaps the world — last month cleared a major hurdle. Controversially, the study would allow logging in a new research forest, in an attempt to answer a grand question: in a world where wood remains a necessary resource, but biodiversity is declining, what’s the best way to balance timber production with conservation?“We all love wood, and we all need wood,” says Thomas DeLuca, dean of the College of Forestry at Oregon State University (OSU) in Corvallis. “We have to find ways to produce it sustainably, and this project could help us do that.”
These scientists are setting a forest on fire — and studying it with drones
If the project — proposed by DeLuca and other researchers at OSU — launches successfully, the newly created Elliott State Research Forest in southwestern Oregon would occupy a roughly 33,000-hectare parcel of land. This would be divided into more than 40 sections, in which scientists would test several forest-management strategies, some including extensive logging. The advisory committee for the project, which comprises environmentalists, hunters, loggers and members of local Indigenous tribes, approved the latest research proposal on 22 April.The plan comes as US President Joe Biden and other international leaders are strengthening commitments to conserve land and biodiversity before a meeting of the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity later this year. In time, the Elliott research forest could help policymakers to determine how best to define and implement those pledges, says DeLuca.A contested forestFor decades, the land that makes up the Elliott State Forest has been mired in controversy. Logging is big business in the US Pacific Northwest, and this particular state-owned piece of land contains old-growth forest filled with valuable Douglas firs (Pseudotsuga menziesii) and other trees. Other sections have been actively logged and replanted since 1930. It also hosts threatened species such as the spotted owl (Strix occidentalis) and the marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus), a seabird that nests in old-growth forests. In 2012, a lawsuit aimed at protecting the marbled murrelet brought commercial logging in the forest to a halt.

Source: Deanne Carlson, OSU/Oregon Geospatial Enterprise Office; Design: Nature

The state of Oregon considered various options for the land, before OSU researchers stepped forward with a plan in 2018. Their proposal to convert the property into a research forest would allow logging to resume at a lower level — but in the service of science and conservation, the scientists say. According to the plan, the profit from logging in the Elliott forest — around US$5 million to $7 million annually, says DeLuca — would help to pay for the experiment’s infrastructure and operations.There are dozens of research forests around the globe, including in the United States, and scientists have used them to study everything from ecology and soils to acid rain and the effects of rising atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. But the Elliott research forest would be larger than most of its predecessors, and advocates say that it would provide scientists with the first opportunity to test ecological forestry at such a large scale.A sea change for forestryAs currently designed, the project would leave more than 40% of the forest — a section of old growth that has been regenerating naturally since the area last burnt, a century and a half ago — untouched by logging. In the remaining area, researchers would run a series of replicated experiments, carrying out 4 types of land management across 40 small watersheds. On some plots, selective logging of individual trees would take place across the entire area. On others, clear-cutting would take place on half of the land, with the other half reserved for conservation. Other types of experimental plot would mix these two approaches (see ‘A grand experiment’). To understand the impacts of each management type, scientists would measure a variety of parameters, including levels of carbon in the forest; stream health; and insect, bird and fish diversity.So far, around 20 OSU researchers are involved in the project’s design, but the university hopes eventually to attract more scientists from across the world, who would run their own projects.

Old-growth areas such as this one would be protected as reserves under a plan to convert the Elliott State Forest into an experimental forest.Credit: Matthew Betts

The scale and approach of the experiment proposed by OSU would represent a sea change in forestry research, says Sue Baker, a forest ecologist at the University of Tasmania in Hobart, Australia, who is setting up a retrospective study looking at similar questions in Tasmanian forests. “I can’t think of anything similar anywhere in the world where people have been able to manipulate the forest landscape at this scale,” says Baker.More hurdles aheadSince its creation in 1930, the Elliott State Forest has been legally obliged to generate revenue for Oregon’s public schools through logging. Before OSU can take it over, the state must compensate the school fund to the tune of $221 million (the value of the forest); it has so far allocated less than half of that amount.And other hurdles remain. The university must finish a detailed management plan that will lay out rules governing the forest, and it must craft a separate plan for managing threatened and endangered species; this will need to be approved by the US Fish and Wildlife Service.
How much can forests fight climate change?
The OSU team has spent the past few years trying to build a broad — and unlikely — coalition for the effort, through public meetings and engagement with local Indigenous tribes, industry, environmentalists and other members of the project’s advisory panel, whose support will be crucial as state leaders weigh their final decision. But tensions haven’t disappeared entirely. Many environmentalists continue to question the logic of clear-cutting forests that absorb and store carbon in the middle of a climate crisis. Rather than perpetuating a long and damaging legacy of clear-cutting, the Elliott forest could be used to pioneer new forestry methods that restore biodiversity and boost carbon storage, says Josh Laughlin, executive director of Cascadia Wildlands, a conservation group based in Eugene, Oregon. “Let’s not make the same mistakes we’ve made over the past 100 years.”Given OSU’s long-standing ties to the timber industry, and controversies surrounding its management of existing research forests, it will also need to overcome scepticism about its role as a land steward, says Bob Van Dyk, a policy director at the Wild Salmon Center, an environmental group based in Portland, Oregon. In 2019, for instance, OSU’s College of Forestry authorized clear-cutting on 6.5 hectares of one of its forests, felling trees that were hundreds of years old.
When will the Amazon hit a tipping point?
DeLuca acknowledges that there have been mistakes in the past, but says the university has a solid academic record, and is committed to building a world-class research facility with the Elliott forest. “If we are able to demonstrate practices that accommodate the broadest array of species while still generating timber for meeting human resource needs, we can have a much larger impact,” says DeLuca.Everything will depend on the final management plan, but for now, Van Dyk and other members of the advisory board have unanimously given a provisional green light to the latest proposal. “It’s a good project, and we don’t get many chances to do something that is truly novel and interesting,” he says. More

A nineteenth-century illustration of a harvest in ancient Greece. Farming intensified around 2000 BC, when the rate of change in Earth’s plant life sped up. Credit: Docutres/Index/Heritage Images/Alamy

Ecology
20 May 2021
Our radical changes to Earth’s greenery began long ago — with farms, not factories

Humanity’s imprint on plant species and abundance began roughly 4,000 years ago, when agriculture took off.

Share on Twitter
Share on Twitter

Share on Facebook
Share on Facebook

Share via E-Mail
Share via E-Mail

Human activity began to transform the number and variety of plant species on Earth thousands of years ago, long before the Industrial Revolution, and might have had an even greater impact on vegetation than did the last ice age.Ice entombed much of the planet from roughly 115,000 to some 20,000 years ago. Then, massive glaciers around the world started to retreat and global temperatures rose, resulting in dramatic alterations to Earth’s ecosystems.To investigate how the abundance and composition of global vegetation changed after that thaw, Ondřej Mottl and Suzette Flantua at the University of Bergen in Norway and their colleagues analysed 1,181 fossilized pollen samples from the past 18,000 years. The pollen came from all continents except Antarctica.The researchers found that global vegetation has been transformed, first by the climate changes that accompanied the end of the last glacial period. However, starting about 4,000 years ago, when agriculture intensified, the pace of change in global vegetation accelerated, reaching or exceeding the rate of change at the end of the most recent ice age.

Science (2021)

Ecology More