Philippa Kaur

1.FAOSTAT: Crops (FAO, 2109); http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QC2.Mottet, A. et al. Livestock: on our plates or eating at our table? A new analysis of the feed/food debate. Glob. Food Sec. 14, 1–8 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
3.Prescott-Allen, R. & Prescott-Allen, C. How many plants feed the world? Conserv. Biol. 4, 365–374 (1990).Article 

Google Scholar 
4.Crittenden, A. N. & Schnorr, S. L. Current views on hunter-gatherer nutrition and the evolution of the human diet. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 162, 84–109 (2017).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
5.Khoury, C. K. et al. Origins of food crops connect countries worldwide. Proc. R. Soc. B 283, 20160792 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
6.Poisot, T., Canard, E., Mouquet, N. & Hochberg, M. E. A comparative study of ecological specialization estimators. Methods Ecol. Evol. 3, 537–544 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
7.Ray, D. K., Mueller, N. D., West, P. C. & Foley, J. A. Yield trends are insufficient to double global crop production by 2050. PLoS ONE 8, e66428 (2013).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
8.Khoury, C. K. et al. Increasing homogeneity in global food supplies and the implications for food security. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 4001–4006 (2014).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
9.Renard, D. & Tilman, D. National food production stabilized by crop diversity. Nature 571, 257–260 (2019).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
10.Newton, A. C., Johnson, S. N. & Gregory, P. J. Implications of climate change for diseases, crop yields and food security. Euphytica 179, 3–18 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
11.Hawkesworth, S. et al. Feeding the world healthily: the challenge of measuring the effects of agriculture on health. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 365, 3083–3097 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
12.Popkin, B. M. Technology, transport, globalization and the nutrition transition food policy. Food Policy 31, 554–569 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
13.Spengler III, R. N. Fruit from the Sands: The Silk Road Origins of the Foods We Eat (Univ. of California Press, 2019).14.Vaughan, J. & Geissler, C. The New Oxford Book of Food Plants (Oxford Univ. Press, 2009).15.Purugganan, M. D. & Fuller, D. Q. The nature of selection during plant domestication. Nature 457, 843–848 (2009).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
16.Wang, L. et al. The interplay of demography and selection during maize domestication and expansion. Genome Biol. 18, 215 (2017).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
17.Milla, R., Bastida, J. M., Turcotte, M. M. & Al, E. Phylogenetic patterns and phenotypic profiles of the species of plants and mammals farmed for food. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2, 1808–1817 (2018).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
18.Ellis, E. C., Klein Goldewijk, K., Siebert, S., Lightman, D. & Ramankutty, N. Anthropogenic transformation of the biomes, 1700 to 2000. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 19, 589–606 (2010).
Google Scholar 
19.Xu, C., Kohler, T. A., Lenton, T. M., Svenning, J.-C. & Scheffer, M. Future of the human climate niche. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117, 11350–11355 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
20.Harlan, J. R. Crops and Man (ASA, 1992).21.Blumler, M. A. et al. in The Origins and Spread of Agriculture and Pastoralism in Eurasia (ed. Harris, D. R.) 25–50 (Smithsonian Institution Press, 1996).22.Hancock, J. F. Plant Evolution and the Origin of Crop Species (CABI, 2012).23.Harlan, J. R. The Living Fields: Our Agricultural Heritage (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1998).24.Lombardo, U. et al. Early Holocene crop cultivation and landscape modification in Amazonia. Nature 581, 190–193 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
25.Denham, T. et al. The domestication syndrome in vegetatively propagated field crops. Ann. Bot. 125, 581–597 (2020).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
26.Meyer, R. S., DuVal, A. E. & Jensen, H. R. Patterns and processes in crop domestication: an historical review and quantitative analysis of 203 global food crops. New Phytol. 196, 29–48 (2012).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
27.Milla, R. Crop origins and phylo food: a database and a phylogenetic tree to stimulate comparative analyses on the origins of food crops. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 29, 606–614 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
28.Larson, G. et al. Current perspectives and the future of domestication studies. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 6139–6146 (2014).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
29.Esquinas-Alcázar, J. Protecting crop genetic diversity for food security: political, ethical and technical challenges. Nat. Rev. Genet. 6, 946–953 (2005).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
30.Clement, C. R. 1492 and the loss of Amazonian crop genetic resources. I. The relation between domestication and human population decline. Econ. Bot. 53, 188–202 (1999).Article 

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

Google Scholar 
32.Tauger, M. B. Agriculture in World History (Routledge, 2013).33.Futuyma, D. J. & Moreno, G. The evolution of ecological specialization. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 19, 207–233 (1988).Article 

Google Scholar 
34.Forister, M. L., Dyer, L. A., Singer, M. S., Stireman, J. O. III & Lill, J. T. Revisiting the evolution of ecological specialization, with emphasis on insect–plant interactions. Ecology 93, 981–991 (2012).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
35.Colles, A., Liow, L. H. & Prinzing, A. Are specialists at risk under environmental change? Neoecological, paleoecological and phylogenetic approaches. Ecol. Lett. 12, 849–863 (2009).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
36.McKinney, M. L. & Lockwood, J. L. Biotic homogenization: a few winners replacing many losers in the next mass extinction. Trends Ecol. Evol. 14, 450–453 (1999).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
37.Richerson, P. J., Boyd, R. & Bettinger, R. L. Was agriculture impossible during the Pleistocene but mandatory during the Holocene? A climate change hypothesis. Am. Antiq. 66, 387–411 (2001).Article 

Google Scholar 
38.Mueller, U. G. & Rabeling, C. A breakthrough innovation in animal evolution. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 105, 5287–5288 (2008).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
39.Schultz, T. R. & Brady, S. G. Major evolutionary transitions in ant agriculture. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 105, 5435–5440 (2008).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
40.Mueller, U. G., Scott, J. J., Ishak, H. D., Cooper, M. & Rodrigues, A. Monoculture of leafcutter ant gardens. PLoS ONE 5, e12668 (2010).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
41.Kingsbury, N. Hybrid, the History and Science of Plant Breeding (Univ. of Chicago Press, 2009).42.Food Outlook—Biannual Report on Global Food Markets: June 2020 (FAO, 2020).43.van Kleunen, M. et al. Economic use of plants is key to their naturalization success. Nat. Commun. 11, 3201 (2020).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
44.Li, T. et al. Domestication of wild tomato is accelerated by genome editing. Nat. Biotechnol. 36, 1160–1163 (2018).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
45.Siddique, K. H. M., Li, X. & Gruber, K. Rediscovering Asia’s forgotten crops to fight chronic and hidden hunger. Nat. Plants 7, 116–122 (2021).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
46.Lancaster, L. T. Host use diversification during range shifts shapes global variation in Lepidopteran dietary breadth. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 4, 963–969 (2020).47.Milla, R. Crop Origins and Phylo Food (GitHub, accessed 1 December 2020); https://github.com/rubenmilla/Crop_Origins_Phylo48.Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF, 2018); https://www.gbif.org49.Fick, S. E. & Hijmans, R. J. WorldClim 2: new 1-km spatial resolution climate surfaces for global land areas. Int. J. Climatol. 37, 4302–4315 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
50.Paradis, E., Claude, J. & Strimmer, K. {APE}: analyses of phylogenetics and evolution in R language. Bioinformatics 20, 289–290 (2004).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
51.Martin, A. R. et al. Regional and global shifts in crop diversity through the Anthropocene. PLoS ONE 14, e0209788 (2019).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
52.The Plant List Version 2 (2013); http://www.theplantlist.org/53.Cayuela, L., la Cerda, Í. G., Albuquerque, F. S. & Golicher, D. J. taxonstand: an R package for species names standardisation in vegetation databases. Methods Ecol. Evol. 3, 1078–1083 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
54.Beres, B. L. et al. A systematic review of durum wheat: enhancing production systems by exploring genotype, environment, and management (Gx Ex M) synergies. Front. Plant. Sci. 11, 568657 (2020).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
55.Paradis, E. in Modern Phylogenetic Comparative Methods and Their Application in Evolutionary Biology (ed. Garamszegi, L. Z.) 3–18 (Springer, 2014).56.Pagel, M. Inferring the historical patterns of biological evolution. Nature 401, 877–884 (1999).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
57.Revell, L. J. phytools: an R package for phylogenetic comparative biology (and other things). Methods Ecol. Evol. 3, 217–223 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
58.de Villemereuil, P. & Nakagawa, S. in Modern Phylogenetic Comparative Methods and Their Application in Evolutionary Biology (ed. Garamszegi, L. Z.) 287–304 (Springer, 2014).59.Keck, F., Rimet, F., Bouchez, A. & Franc, A. phylosignal: an R package to measure, test, and explore the phylogenetic signal. Ecol. Evol. 6, 2774–2780 (2016).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
60.Bush, S. E. et al. Unlocking the black box of feather louse diversity: a molecular phylogeny of the hyper-diverse genus Brueelia. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 94, 737–751 (2016).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
61.R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2018).62.Fox, J. & Weisberg, S. An R Companion to Applied Regression (Sage, 2019).63.Grafen, A. & Hamilton, W. D. The phylogenetic regression. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 326, 119–157 (1989).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
64.Pinheiro, J., Bates, D., DebRoy, S., Sarkar, D. & R Development Core Team. nlme: Linear and nonlinear mixed effects models. R package version 3.1-142 (2020).65.Ives, A. R. & Garland, T. Jr. Phylogenetic logistic regression for binary dependent variables. Syst. Biol. 59, 9–26 (2009).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar  More

1.McCrea, R. T., Pemberton, S. G. & Currie, P. J. New ichnotaxa of mammal and reptile tracks from the Upper Paleocene of Alberta. Ichnos 11, 323–339 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
2.Henderson, D. M. A wide-gauge, large-mammal trackway from the upper Paleocene of Alberta Canada. Can. J. Earth Sci. 52, 696–700 (2015).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
3.Lüthje, C. J., Milàn, J. & Hurum, J. H. Paleocene tracks of the mammal pantodont genus Titanoides in coal-bearing strata, Svalbard, Arctic Norway. J. Vertebr. Paleontol. 30, 521–527 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
4.Davydenko, S., Laime, M. J. & Gol’din, P. The earliest record of a marine mammal (Cetacea: Basilosauridae) from the Eocene of Amazonia. J. Vertebr. Paleontol. 38, e1549060 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
5.Hansen, D.E. Laramide tectonics and deposition of the Ferris and Hanna Formations, south-central Wyoming in Paleotectonics and sedimentation in the Rocky Mountain Region, United States: American Association of Petroleum Geologists Memoir 41 (ed. Peterson, J.A.) 481–495 (AAPG, 1986).6.Dechesne, M. et al. A new stratigraphic framework and constraints for the position of the Paleocene-Eocene boundary in the rapidly subsiding Hanna Basin, Wyoming. Geosphere 16, 594–618 (2020).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
7.Hasiotis, S. T. & Honey, J. G. Paleohydrologic and stratigraphic significance of crayfish burrows in continental deposits: examples from several Paleocene Laramide basins in the Rocky Mountains. J. Sediment. Res. 70, 127–139 (2000).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
8.Gingras, M. K., Pemberton, S. G., Saunders, T. D. A. & Clifton, H. E. The ichnology of modern and Pleistocene brackish-water deposits at Willapa Bay, Washington: variability in estuarine settings. Palaios 14, 352–374 (1999).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
9.Gingras, M. K., Hubbard, S. M., Pemberton, S. G. & Saunders, T. The significance of Pleistocene Psilonichnus at Willapa Bay, Washington. Palaios 15, 142–151 (2000).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
10.Gingras, M.K., MacEachern, J.A., Dashtgard, S.E., Zonneveld, J.-P., Schoengut, J., Ranger, M.J., & Pemberton, G. Estuaries. in Trace fossils as indicators of sedimentary environments. Developments in sedimentology, Volume 64 (eds. Knaust, D. &Bromley, R.G.) 463–507 (Elsevier, 2012).11.Gingras, M. K., MacEachern, J. A., Dashtgard, S. E., Ranger, M. J. & Pemberton, S. G. The significance of trace fossils in the McMurray Formation, Alberta, Canada. Bull. Can. Pet. Geol. 64, 233–250 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
12.MacEachern, J.A., Bann, K.L., Bhattacharya, J., & Howell, C.D. Ichnology of deltas: organism responses to the dynamic interplay of rivers, waves, storms, and tides. in River deltas-concepts, models, and examples, Volume 51, SEPM Special Publication (eds. Giosan, L., & Bhattacharya, J.P.) 49–85 (SEPM, 2005).13.Hauk, T. E., Dashtgard, S. E. & Pemberton, S. G. Brackish-water ichnological trends in a microtidal barrier island–embayment system, Kouchibouguac National Park, New Brunswick, Canada. Palaios 24, 478–496 (2011).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
14.Pemberton, S.G., & Wightman, D.M. Ichnological characteristics of brackish water deposits. in Applications of ichnology to petroleum exploration. Volume 17, SEPM Core Workshops, (ed. Pemberton, S.G.) 141–167 (SEPM, 1992).15.Hubbard, S. M., Gingras, M. K. & Pemberton, S. G. Palaeoenvironmental implications of trace fossils in estuary deposits of the Cretaceous Bluesky Formation, Cadotte region, Alberta, Canada. Fossils Strata 51, 68–87 (2004).
Google Scholar 
16.Xing, L. et al. Dinosaur natural track casts from the Lower Cretaceous Hekou Group in the Lanzhou-Minhe Basin, Gansu, Northwest China: Ichnology, track formation, and distribution. Cretac. Res. 52, 194–205 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
17.Elbroch, M. Mammal tracks and sign (Stackpole Books, 2003).
Google Scholar 
18.Osborn, H. F. Evolution of the Amblypoda. Part I. Taligrada and Pantodonta. Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist. Bull. 10, 1–50 (1898).
Google Scholar 
19.Simons, E. L. The Paleocene Pantodonta. Trans. Am. Philos. Soc. 50, 3–99 (1960).Article 

Google Scholar 
20.Bennett, M. R., Morse, S. A. & Falkingham, P. L. Tracks made by swimming Hippopotami: an example from Koobi Fora (Turkana Basin, Kenya). Palaeogeogr. Palaeoclimatol. Palaeoecol. 409, 9–23 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
21.Clementz, M. T., Holroyd, P. A. & Koch, P. L. Identifying aquatic habits of herbivorous mammals through stable isotope analysis. Palaios 23, 574–585 (2008).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
22.Uhen, M. D. & Gingerich, P. D. Evolution of Coryphodon (Mammalia, Pantodonta) in the late Paleocene and early Eocene of northwestern Wyoming. Contrib. Mus. Paleontol. Univ. Michigan 29, 259–289 (1995).
Google Scholar 
23.Hasiotis, S. T. Reconnaissance of Upper Jurassic Morrison Formation ichnofossils, Rocky Mountain Region, USA: paleoenvironmental, stratigraphic, and paleoclimatic significance of terrestrial and freshwater ichnocoenoses. Sed. Geol. 167, 177–268 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
24.Bordy, E. M., Bumby, A. J., Catuneanu, O. & Eriksson, P. G. Possible trace fossils of putative termite origin in the Lower Jurassic (Karoo Supergroup) of South Africa and Lesotho. S. Afr. J. Sci. 105, 356–362 (2009).
Google Scholar 
25.Bromley, R. G. et al. Comments on the paper “Reconnaissance of Upper Jurassic Morrison Formation ichnofossils, Rocky Mountain Region, USA: Paleoenvironmental, stratigraphic, and paleoclimatic significance of terrestrial and freshwater ichnocoenoses” by Stephen T. Hasiotis. Sed. Geol. 200, 141–150 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
26.Eberle, J. J. A new ‘tapir’ from Ellesmere Island, Arctic Canada-implications for northern high latitude palaeobiogeography and tapir palaeobiology. Palaeogeogr. Palaeoclimatol. Palaeoecol. 227, 311–322 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
27.Halliday, T. J. D., Upchurch, P. & Goswami, A. Resolving the relationships of Paleocene placental mammals. Biol. Rev. 92, 521–550 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
28.Zurano, J. P. et al. Cetrtiodactyla: updating a time-calibrated molecular phylogeny. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 133, 256–262 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
29.Knaust, D. Atlas of trace fossils in well core: appearance, taxonomy and interpretation (Springer, 2017).Book 

Google Scholar 
30.Bingham, B. L., Freytes, I., Emery, M., Dimond, J. & Muller-Parker, G. Aerial exposure and body temperature of the intertidal sea anemone Anthopleura elegantissima. Invertebr. Biol. 130, 291–301 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
31.Jayewardene, J. The elephant in Sri Lanka. Wildlife Heritage Trust of Sri Lanka, Sri Lanka (1994).32.Miller, F.L. Inter-island water crossings by Peary caribou, south-central Queen Elizabeth Islands. Arctic, 8–12 (1995).33.Harveson, P. M., Grant, W. E., Lopez, R. R., Silvy, N. J. & Frank, P. A. The role of dispersal in Florida Key deer metapopulation dynamics. Ecol. Model. 195, 393–401 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
34.Quigley, D. T. G. & Moffatt, S. Sika-like deer Cervus nippon Temminck, 1838 observed swimming out to sea at Greystones, Co., Wicklow: increasing deer population pressure?. Bull. Ir. Biogeogr. Soc. 38, 251–261 (2014).
Google Scholar 
35.Castelló, J. R. Bovids of the world: Antelopes, gazelles, cattle, goas, sheep, and relatives (Princeton University Press, 2016).Book 

Google Scholar 
36.Naranjo, E.J. Tapirs of the Neotropics. in Ecology and conservation of tropical ungulates in Latin America (ed. Gallina-Tessaro, S.) 439–451(Springer, 2019).37.Kavčić, K., Corlatti, L., Rodriguez, O., Kavčić, B. & Šprem, N. From the mountains to the sea! Unusual swimming behavior in chamois Rupicapra spp. Ethol. Ecol. Evol. 32, 402–408 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
38.Roth, H. H., Hoppe-Dominik, B., Mühlenberg, M., Steinhauer-Burkart, B. & Fischer, F. Distribution and status of the hippopotamids in the Ivory Coast. Afr. Zool. 39, 211–224 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
39.Pilfold, N. W., McCall, A., Derocher, A. E., Lunn, N. J. & Richardson, E. Migratory response of polar bears to sea ice loss: to swim or not to swim. Ecography 40, 189–199 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
40.Smith, T. S. & Partridge, S. T. Dynamics of intertidal foraging by coastal brown bears in southwestern Alaska. J. Wildl. Manag. 68, 233–240 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
41.Lewis, T. M. & Lafferty, D. J. Brown bears and wolves scavenge humpback whale carcass in Alaska. Ursus 25, 8–13 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
42.Morgan, B. J. & Lee, P. C. Forest elephant group composition, frugivory and coastal use in the Réserve de Faune du Petit Loango, Gabon. Afr. J. Ecol. 45, 519–526 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
43.Prinsloo, A. S., Pillay, D. & O’Riain, M. J. Multiscale drivers of hippopotamus distribution in the St Lucia Estuary, South Africa. Afr. Zool. 55, 127–140 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
44.Boonratana, R. A statewide survey to estimate the distribution and density of the Sumatran rhinoceros, Asian elephant and banteng in Sabah, Malaysia. Wildlife Conservation Society, New York (1997). More

1.Muller, A. et al. Strategies for feeding the world more sustainably with organic agriculture. Nat. Commun. 8, 1290 (2017).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
2.Foley, J. A. et al. Solutions for a cultivated planet. Nature 478, 337–342 (2011).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
3.Mäder, P. et al. Soil fertility and biodiversity in organic farming. Science 296, 1694–1697 (2002).ADS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
4.Bergström, L. & Kirchmann, H. Are the claimed benefits of organic agriculture justified? Nat. Plants 2, 16099 (2016).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
5.Connor, D. J. Organic agriculture and food security: a decade of unreason finally implodes. Field Crops Res. 225, 128–129 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
6.Connor, D. J. Organic agriculture cannot feed the world. Field Crops Res. 106, 187–190 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
7.Erb, K. et al. Exploring the biophysical option space for feeding the world without deforestation. Nat. Commun. 7, 11382 (2016).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
8.Nowak, B., Nesme, T., David, C. & Pellerin, S. Disentangling the drivers of fertilising material inflows in organic farming. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst. 96, 79–91 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
9.Oelofse, M., Jensen, L. S. & Magid, J. The implications of phasing out conventional nutrient supply in organic agriculture: Denmark as a case. Organ. Agric. 3, 41–55 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
10.Tayleur, C. & Phalan, B. Organic farming and deforestation. Nat. Plants 2, 16098 (2016).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
11.Principles of Organic Agriculture (IFOAM, 2018); https://www.ifoam.bio/en/organic-landmarks/principles-organic-agriculture12.European Commission Commission Regulation (EC) No 889/2008. Official Journal of the European Union L 250/1 (2008).13.Yussefi-Menzler, M., Willer, H. & Sorensen, N. The World of Organic Agriculture. Statistics and Emerging Trends 2019 (Routledge, 2019); https://doi.org/10.4324/978184977599114.Barbieri, P., Pellerin, S. & Nesme, T. Comparing crop rotations between organic and conventional farming. Sci. Rep. 7, 13761 (2017).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
15.McKenzie, F. C. & Williams, J. Sustainable food production: constraints, challenges and choices by 2050. Food Security https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-015-0441-1 (2015).16.Rigby, D. & Cáceres, D. Organic farming and the sustainability of agricultural systems. Agric. Syst. 68, 21–40 (2001).Article 

Google Scholar 
17.Barbieri, P., Pellerin, S., Seufert, V. & Nesme, T. Changes in crop rotations would impact food production in an organically farmed world. Nat. Sustain. 2, 378–385 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
18.Baudry, J. et al. Improvement of diet sustainability with increased level of organic food in the diet: findings from the BioNutriNet cohort. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 109, 1173–1188 (2019).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
19.Chaudhary, A., Gustafson, D. & Mathys, A. Multi-indicator sustainability assessment of global food systems. Nat. Commun. 9, 848 (2018).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
20.Smith, L. C. & Haddad, L. Reducing child undernutrition: past drivers and priorities for the post-MDG era. World Dev. 68, 180–204 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
21.Gibson, R. S. & Hotz, C. Dietary diversification/modification strategies to enhance micronutrient content and bioavailability of diets in developing countries. Br. J. Nutr. 85, S159 (2001).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
22.Mie, A. et al. Human health implications of organic food and organic agriculture: a comprehensive review. Environ. Health 16, 1–22 (2017).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
23.Van Zanten, H. H. E. et al. Defining a land boundary for sustainable livestock consumption. Glob. Change Biol. 24, 4185–4194 (2018).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
24.White, R. R. & Hall, M. B. Nutritional and greenhouse gas impacts of removing animals from US agriculture. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1707322114 (2017).25.Soussana, J. F. & Lemaire, G. Coupling carbon and nitrogen cycles for environmentally sustainable intensification of grasslands and crop-livestock systems. Agr. Ecosyst. Environ. 190, 9–17 (2014).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
26.Schader, C. et al. Impacts of feeding less food-competing feedstuffs to livestock on global food system sustainability. J. R. Soc. Interface 12, 20150891 (2015).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
27.Persson, U. M., Johansson, D. J. A., Cederberg, C., Hedenus, F. & Bryngelsson, D. Climate metrics and the carbon footprint of livestock products: where’s the beef? Environ. Res. Lett. 10, 034005 (2015).ADS 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
28.Mehrabi, Z., Ellis, E. C. & Ramankutty, N. The challenge of feeding the world while conserving half the planet. Nat. Sustain. 1, 409–412 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
29.Eyhorn, F. et al. Sustainability in global agriculture driven by organic farming. Nat. Sustain. 2, 253–255 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
30.Badgley, M. C. et al. Organic agriculture and the global food supply. Renew. Agr. Food Syst. 22, 86–108 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
31.Karlsson, J. O. & Röös, E. Resource-efficient use of land and animals—environmental impacts of food systems based on organic cropping and avoided food-feed competition. Land Use Policy 85, 63–72 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
32.Watson, C. A. et al. A review of farm-scale nutrient budgets for organic farms as a tool for management of soil fertility. Soil Use Manage. 18, 264–273 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
33.Nowak, B., Nesme, T., David, C. & Pellerin, S. To what extent does organic farming rely on nutrient inflows from conventional farming? Environ. Res. Lett. 8, 044045 (2013).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
34.Feuerbacher, A., Luckmann, J., Boysen, O., Zikeli, S. & Grethe, H. Is Bhutan destined for 100% organic? Assessing the economy-wide effects of a large-scale conversion policy. PLoS ONE 13, e0199025 (2018).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
35.Ponisio, L. C. et al. Diversification practices reduce organic to conventional yield gap. Proc. R. Soc. B https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2014.1396 (2015).36.Trimmer, J. T. & Guest, J. S. Recirculation of human-derived nutrients from cities to agriculture across six continents. Nat. Sustain. 1, 427–435 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
37.Hoornweg, D. & Bhada-Tata, P. What a Waste. A Global Review of Solid Waste Management (World Bank, 2012).38.Reganold, J. P. & Wachter, J. M. Organic agriculture in the twenty-first century. Nat. Plants 2, 15221 (2016).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
39.Tuomisto, H. L., Hodge, I. D., Riordan, P. & Macdonald, D. W. Does organic farming reduce environmental impacts? A meta-analysis of European research. J. Environ. Manage. 112, 309–320 (2012).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
40.Crowder, D. W. & Reganold, J. P. Financial competitiveness of organic agriculture on a global scale. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, 7611–7616 (2015).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
41.Bartelt, K. D. & Bland, W. L. Theoretical analysis of manure transport distance as a function of herd size and landscape fragmentation. J. Soil Water Conserv. 62, 345–352 (2007).
Google Scholar 
42.De Klein, C. et al. in IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (eds Buendia, L. & Eggleston, S.) Ch. 11 (IPCC, 2006).43.Godard, C., Roger-Estrade, J., Jayet, P. A., Brisson, N. & Le Bas, C. Use of available information at a European level to construct crop nitrogen response curves for the regions of the EU. Agric. Syst. 97, 68–82 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
44.Sheldrick, W., Syers, J. K. & Lingard, J. Contribution of livestock excreta to nutrient balances. Nutr. Cycling Agroecosyst. 66, 119–131 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
45.Dong, H. et al. in IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (eds Buendia, L. & Eggleston, S.) Ch. 10 (IPCC, 2006).46.Hogh-Jensen, H., Loges, R., Jorgensen, F. V., Vinther, F. P. & Jensen, E. S. An empirical model for quantification of symbiotic nitrogen fixation in grass-clover mixtures. Agric. Syst. 82, 181–194 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
47.Liu, J. et al. A high-resolution assessment on global nitrogen flows in cropland. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 107, 8035–8040 (2010).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
48.Dentener, F. et al. Nitrogen and sulfur deposition on regional and global scales: a multimodel evaluation. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 20, GB4003 (2006).ADS 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
49.Monfreda, C., Ramankutty, N. & Foley, J. A. Farming the planet: 2. Geographic distribution of crop areas, yields, physiological types, and net primary production in the year 2000. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 22, GB1022 (2008).ADS 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
50.Licker, R. et al. Mind the gap: How do climate and agricultural management explain the ‘yield gap’ of croplands around the world? Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 19, 769–782 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
51.Srednicka-Tober, D. et al. Composition differences between organic and conventional meat: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis. Br. J. Nutr. 115, 994–1011 (2016).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
52.Herrero, M. et al. Biomass use, production, feed efficiencies, and greenhouse gas emissions from global livestock systems. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110, 20888–20893 (2013).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
53.Van Drecht, G., Bouwman, A. F., Harrison, J. & Knoop, J. M. Global nitrogen and phosphate in urban wastewater for the period 1970 to 2050. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 23, 1–19 (2009).
Google Scholar 
54.World Population Prospects 2015—Data Booklet (United Nations, 2015); https://doi.org/ST/ESA/SER.A/37755.Ahmed, S. & Blumberg, J. Dietary guidelines for Americans, 2010. Nutr. Rev. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0300-7073(05)71075-6 (2009).56.Gerten, D. et al. Feeding ten billion people is possible within four terrestrial planetary boundaries. Nat. Sustain 3, 200–208 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
57.Fetzel, T. et al. Quantification of uncertainties in global grazing systems assessment. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 31, 1089–1102 (2017).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar  More

1.Chiappe, L. M. in Encyclopedia of Dinosaurs (eds Currie, P. J. & Padian, K.) 32–38 (Academic, 1997).2.Mayr, G. Avian Evolution: The Fossil Record of Birds and its Paleobiological Significance (Wiley, 2017).3.O’Connor, J. K. The trophic habits of early birds. Palaeogeogr. Palaeoclimatol. Palaeoecol. 513, 178–195 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
4.Benton, M. J. Vertebrate Palaeontology (Wiley, 2015).5.Chatterjee, S. The Rise of Birds: 225 Million Years of Evolution (Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, 2015).6.Chiappe, L. M. & Qingjin, M. Birds of Stone Chinese Avian Fossils from the Age of Dinosaurs (Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, 2016).7.Ksepka, D. T., Grande, L. & Mayr, G. Oldest finch-beaked birds reveal parallel ecological radiations in the earliest evolution of passerines. Curr. Biol. 29, 657–663 (2019).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
8.O’Connor, J. K. & Zhou, Z. The evolution of the modern avian digestive system: insights from paravian fossils from the Yanliao and Jehol biotas. Palaeontology 63, 13–27 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
9.Zhou, Z., Barrett, P. M. & Hilton, J. An exceptionally preserved Lower Cretaceous ecosystem. Nature 421, 807–814 (2003).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
10.Zhou, Z. & Zhang, F. A long-tailed, seed-eating bird from the Early Cretaceous of China. Nature 418, 405–409 (2002).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
11.Zheng, X. et al. Fossil evidence of avian crops from the Early Cretaceous of China. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108, 15904–15907 (2011).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
12.Miller, C. V. et al. Disassociated rhamphotheca of fossil bird Confuciusornis informs early beak reconstruction, stress regime, and developmental patterns. Commun. Biol. 3, 519 (2020).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
13.Miller, C. & Pittman, M. The diet of early birds based on modern and fossil evidence and a new framework for its reconstruction. ESSOAr https://doi.org/10.1002/essoar.10504068.2 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
14.Wang, M., Wang, X., Wang, Y. & Zhou, Z. A new basal bird from China with implications for morphological diversity in early birds. Sci. Rep. 6, 19700 (2016).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
15.Zanno, L. E. & Makovicky, P. J. Herbivorous ecomorphology and specialization patterns in theropod dinosaur evolution. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108, 232–237 (2011).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
16.Karasov, W. H. & Douglas, A. E. Comparative digestive physiology. Compr. Physiol. 3, 741–783 (2013).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
17.Karasov, W. H., Martinez del Rio, C. & Caviedes-Vidal, E. Ecological physiology of diet and digestive systems. Annu. Rev. Physiol. 73, 69–93 (2011).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
18.Miller, S. A. & Harley, J. P. Zoology (McGraw-Hill, 2016).19.Corring, T. The adaptation of digestive enzymes to the diet: its physiological significance. Reprod. Nutr. Dev. 20, 1217–1235 (1980).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
20.German, D. P., Horn, M. H. & Gawlicka, A. Digestive enzyme activities in herbivorous and carnivorous prickleback fishes (Teleostei: Stichaeidae): ontogenetic, dietary, and phylogenetic effects. Physiol. Biochem. Zool. 77, 789–804 (2004).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
21.Hidalgo, M., Urea, E. & Sanz, A. Comparative study of digestive enzymes in fish with different nutritional habits. Proteolytic and amylase activities. Aquaculture 170, 267–283 (1998).Article 

Google Scholar 
22.Karasov, W. H. & Diamond, J. M. Interplay between physiology and ecology in digestion: intestinal nutrient transporters vary within and between species according to diet. BioScience 38, 602–611 (1988).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
23.Hecker, N., Sharma, V. & Hiller, M. Convergent gene losses illuminate metabolic and physiological changes in herbivores and carnivores. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 3036–3041 (2019).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
24.Schondube, J. E., Herrera-M, L. G. & del Rio, C. M. Diet and the evolution of digestion and renal function in phyllostomid bats. Zoology 104, 59–73 (2001).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
25.Wang, Z. et al. Evolution of digestive enzyme genes associated with dietary diversity of crabs. Genetica 148, 87–99 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
26.Wang, Z. et al. Evolution of digestive enzymes and RNASE1 provides insights into dietary switch of cetaceans. Mol. Biol. Evol. 33, 3144–3157 (2016).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
27.Mayo Clinic. Encyclopedia of Foods: a Guide to Healthy Nutrition (Academic, 2002).28.Chen, Y.-H. & Zhao, H. Evolution of digestive enzymes and dietary diversification in birds. PeerJ 7, e6840 (2019).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
29.Wu, Y. et al. Genomic bases underlying the adaptive radiation of core landbirds. Preprint at bioRxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.07.29.222281 (2020).30.Wu, Y. & Wang, H. Convergent evolution of bird-mammal shared characteristics for adapting to nocturnality. Proc. Biol. Sci. 286, 20182185 (2019).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
31.Wu, Y., Wang, H. & Hadly, E. A. Invasion of ancestral mammals into dim-light environments inferred from adaptive evolution of the phototransduction genes. Sci. Rep. 7, 46542 (2017).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
32.Wu, Y., Wang, H., Wang, H. & Feng, J. Arms race of temporal partitioning between carnivorous and herbivorous mammals. Sci. Rep. 8, 1713 (2018).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
33.Yang, Z. PAML 4: phylogenetic analysis by maximum likelihood. Mol. Biol. Evol. 24, 1586–1591 (2007).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
34.Naim, H. Y., Sterchi, E. & Lentze, M. Biosynthesis of the human sucrase-isomaltase complex. Differential O-glycosylation of the sucrase subunit correlates with its position within the enzyme complex. J. Biol. Chem. 263, 7242–7253 (1988).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
35.Boll, W., Wagner, P. & Mantei, N. Structure of the chromosomal gene and cDNAs coding for lactase-phlorizin hydrolase in humans with adult-type hypolactasia or persistence of lactase. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 48, 889–902 (1991).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
36.Furuta, H. et al. Sequence of human hexokinase III cDNA and assignment of the human hexokinase III gene (HK3) to chromosome band 5q35. 2 by fluorescence in situ hybridization. Genomics 36, 206–209 (1996).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
37.Wright, E., Hirayama, B. & Loo, D. Active sugar transport in health and disease. J. Intern. Med. 261, 32–43 (2007).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
38.Cura, A. J. & Carruthers, A. Role of monosaccharide transport proteins in carbohydrate assimilation, distribution, metabolism, and homeostasis. Compr. Physiol. 2, 863–914 (2012).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
39.Douard, V. & Ferraris, R. P. Regulation of the fructose transporter GLUT5 in health and disease. Am. J. Physiol. Endocrinol. Metab. 295, E227–E237 (2008).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
40.Mueckler, M. & Thorens, B. The SLC2 (GLUT) family of membrane transporters. Mol. Asp. Med. 34, 121–138 (2013).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
41.Li, Y. et al. N-myc downstream-regulated gene 2, a novel estrogen-targeted gene, is involved in the regulation of Na+/K+-ATPase. J. Biol. Chem. 286, 32289–32299 (2011).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
42.Pepino, M. Y., Kuda, O., Samovski, D. & Abumrad, N. A. Structure-function of CD36 and importance of fatty acid signal transduction in fat metabolism. Annu. Rev. Nutr. 34, 281–303 (2014).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
43.Izar, M. C., Tegani, D. M., Kasmas, S. H. & Fonseca, F. A. Phytosterols and phytosterolemia: gene–diet interactions. Genes Nutr. 6, 17–26 (2011).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
44.Takeuchi, K. & Reue, K. Biochemistry, physiology, and genetics of GPAT, AGPAT, and lipin enzymes in triglyceride synthesis. Am. J. Physiol. Endocrinol. Metab. 296, E1195–E1209 (2009).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
45.Mangaraj, M., Nanda, R. & Panda, S. Apolipoprotein AI a molecule of diverse function. Indian J. Clin. Biochem. 31, 253–259 (2016).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
46.Qu, J., Ko, C.-W., Tso, P. & Bhargava, A. Apolipoprotein A-IV: a multifunctional protein involved in protection against atherosclerosis and diabetes. Cells 8, 319 (2019).CAS 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
47.Hazard, S. E. & Patel, S. B. Sterolins ABCG5 and ABCG8: regulators of whole body dietary sterols. Pflug. Arch. 453, 745–752 (2007).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
48.Frølund, S., Holm, R., Brodin, B. & Nielsen, C. U. The proton‐coupled amino acid transporter, SLC36A1 (hPAT1), transports Gly‐Gly, Gly‐Sar and other Gly‐Gly mimetics. Br. J. Pharm. 161, 589–600 (2010).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
49.Szabó, A., Pilsak, C., Bence, M., Witt, H. & Sahin-Tóth, M. Complex formation of human proelastases with procarboxypeptidases A1 and A2. J. Biol. Chem. 291, 17706–17716 (2016).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
50.Crisman, J. M., Zhang, B., Norman, L. P. & Bond, J. S. Deletion of the mouse meprin β metalloprotease gene diminishes the ability of leukocytes to disseminate through extracellular matrix. J. Immunol. 172, 4510–4519 (2004).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
51.Erşahin, Ç., Szpaderska, A. M., Orawski, A. T. & Simmons, W. H. Aminopeptidase P isozyme expression in human tissues and peripheral blood mononuclear cell fractions. Arch. Biochem. Biophys. 435, 303–310 (2005).PubMed 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
52.Higuchi, Y. et al. Mutations in MME cause an autosomal‐recessive Charcot–Marie–Tooth disease type 2. Ann. Neurol. 79, 659–672 (2016).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
53.Lambeir, A.-M., Durinx, C., Scharpé, S. & De Meester, I. Dipeptidyl-peptidase IV from bench to bedside: an update on structural properties, functions, and clinical aspects of the enzyme DPP IV. Crit. Rev. Clin. Lab Sci. 40, 209–294 (2003).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
54.Tipnis, S. R. et al. A human homolog of angiotensin-converting enzyme cloning and functional expression as a captopril-insensitive carboxypeptidase. J. Biol. Chem. 275, 33238–33243 (2000).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
55.Yamamoto, K. K. et al. Isolation of a cDNA encoding a human serum marker for acute pancreatitis. Identification of pancreas-specific protein as pancreatic procarboxypeptidase B. J. Biol. Chem. 267, 2575–2581 (1992).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
56.Liang, R. et al. Human intestinal H+/peptide cotransporter cloning, functional expression, and chromosomal localization. J. Biol. Chem. 270, 6456–6463 (1995).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
57.Johansson, B. B. et al. The role of the carboxyl ester lipase (CEL) gene in pancreatic disease. Pancreatology 18, 12–19 (2018).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
58.Shen, W.-J., Azhar, S. & Kraemer, F. B. SR-B1: a unique multifunctional receptor for cholesterol influx and efflux. Annu. Rev. Physiol. 80, 95–116 (2018).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
59.Stahl, A. et al. Identification of the major intestinal fatty acid transport protein. Mol. Cell 4, 299–308 (1999).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
60.Hussain, M. M., Rava, P., Walsh, M., Rana, M. & Iqbal, J. Multiple functions of microsomal triglyceride transfer protein. Nutr. Metab. 9, 14 (2012).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
61.Ludvik, A. E. et al. HKDC1 is a novel hexokinase involved in whole-body glucose use. Endocrinology 157, 3452–3461 (2016).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
62.Wertheim, J. O., Murrell, B., Smith, M. D., Kosakovsky Pond, S. L. & Scheffler, K. RELAX: detecting relaxed selection in a phylogenetic framework. Mol. Biol. Evol. 32, 820–832 (2015).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
63.Wang, N. & Tall, A. R. Regulation and mechanisms of ATP-binding cassette transporter A1-mediated cellular cholesterol efflux. Arterioscler. Thromb. Vasc. Biol. 23, 1178–1184 (2003).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
64.Wang, G., Bonkovsky, H. L., de Lemos, A. & Burczynski, F. J. Recent insights into the biological functions of liver fatty acid binding protein 1. J. Lipid Res. 56, 2238–2247 (2015).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
65.Tousignant, K. D. et al. Lipid uptake is an androgen-enhanced lipid supply pathway associated with prostate cancer disease progression and bone metastasis. Mol. Cancer Res. 17, 1166–1179 (2019).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
66.Cui, X.-L., Schlesier, A. M., Fisher, E. L., Cerqueira, C. & Ferraris, R. P. Fructose-induced increases in neonatal rat intestinal fructose transport involve the PI3-kinase/Akt signaling pathway. Am. J. Physiol. Gastrointest. Liver Physiol. 288, G1310–G1320 (2005).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
67.Cappello, A. R., Curcio, R., Lappano, R., Maggiolini, M. & Dolce, V. The physiopathological role of the exchangers belonging to the SLC37 family. Front. Chem. 6, 122 (2018).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
68.Nesbitt, S. J. The early evolution of archosaurs: relationships and the origin of major clades. Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist. 352, 1–292 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
69.Yahia, E. M. Fruit and Vegetable Phytochemicals: Chemistry and Human Health (Wiley, 2018).70.Caviedes-Vidal, E. et al. The digestive adaptation of flying vertebrates: high intestinal paracellular absorption compensates for smaller guts. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 104, 19132–19137 (2007).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
71.Frei, S. et al. Comparative digesta retention patterns in ratites. Auk 132, 119–131 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
72.Price, E. R., Brun, A., Caviedes-Vidal, E. & Karasov, W. H. Digestive adaptations of aerial lifestyles. Physiology 30, 69–78 (2015).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
73.Larson, D. W., Brown, C. M. & Evans, D. C. Dental disparity and ecological stability in bird-like dinosaurs prior to the end-Cretaceous mass extinction. Curr. Biol. 26, 1325–1333 (2016).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
74.Matsukawa, M., Shibata, K., Sato, K., Xing, X. & Lockley, M. G. The Early Cretaceous terrestrial ecosystems of the Jehol Biota based on food-web and energy-flow models. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 113, 836–853 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
75.Wolff, R. L. et al. Abietoid seed fatty acid composition—a review of the genera Abies, Cedrus, Hesperopeuce, Keteleeria, Pseudolarix, and Tsuga and preliminary inferences on the taxonomy of Pinaceae. Lipids 37, 17–26 (2002).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
76.Wolff, R. L., Pédrono, F., Pasquier, E. & Marpeau, A. M. General characteristics of Pinus spp. Sseed fatty acid compositions, and importance of Δ5‐olefinic acids in the taxonomy and phylogeny of the genus. Lipids 35, 1–22 (2000).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
77.Friis, E. M., Crane, P. R. & Pedersen, K. R. Early Flowers and Angiosperm Evolution (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2011).78.Clench, M. H. & Mathias, J. R. The avian cecum: a review. Wilson Bull. 107, 93–121 (1995).
Google Scholar 
79.Li, Z. et al. Ultramicrostructural reductions in teeth: implications for dietary transition from non-avian dinosaurs to birds. BMC Evol. Biol. 20, 46 (2020).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
80.Ma, W., Pittman, M., Lautenschlager, S., Meade, L. E. & Xu, X. in Pennaraptoran Theropod Dinosaurs: Past Progress and New Frontiers (eds Pittman, M. & Xu, X.) 229–249 (Scientific Publications of the American Museum of Natural History, 2020).81.Barrett, P. M. Paleobiology of herbivorous dinosaurs. Annu. Rev. Earth Planet Sci. 42, 207–230 (2014).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
82.Zanno, L. E., Gillette, D. D., Albright, L. B. & Titus, A. L. A new North American therizinosaurid and the role of herbivory in ‘predatory’dinosaur evolution. Proc. R. Soc. B 276, 3505–3511 (2009).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
83.Cowen, R. History to Life (Wiley, 2013).84.You, H.-l et al. A nearly modern amphibious bird from the Early Cretaceous of northwestern China. Science 312, 1640–1643 (2006).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
85.Xu, X. et al. An integrative approach to understanding bird origins. Science 346, 1253293 (2014).PubMed 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
86.Brusatte, S. L. Dinosaur Paleobiology (Wiley, 2012).87.Button, K., You, H., Kirkland, J. I. & Zanno, L. Incremental growth of therizinosaurian dental tissues: implications for dietary transitions in Theropoda. PeerJ 5, e4129 (2017).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
88.Han, G. et al. A new raptorial dinosaur with exceptionally long feathering provides insights into dromaeosaurid flight performance. Nat. Commun. 5, 4382 (2014).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
89.O’Connor, J. et al. Microraptor with ingested lizard suggests non-specialized digestive function. Curr. Biol. 29, 2423–2429 (2019).PubMed 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
90.O’Connor, J., Zhou, Z. & Xu, X. Additional specimen of Microraptor provides unique evidence of dinosaurs preying on birds. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108, 19662–19665 (2011).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
91.Xu, X., You, H., Du, K. & Han, F. An Archaeopteryx-like theropod from China and the origin of Avialae. Nature 475, 465–470 (2011).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
92.Wang, S., Stiegler, J., Wu, P. & Chuong, C.-M. in Pennaraptoran Theropod Dinosaurs: Past Progress and New Frontiers (eds Pittman, M. & Xu, X.) 205–228 (Scientific Publications of the American Museum of Natural History, 2020).93.Farlow, J. O. & Holtz, T. R. The fossil record of predation in dinosaurs. Paleontol. Soc. Pap. 8, 251–266 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
94.Pittman, M. et al. in Pennaraptoran Theropod Dinosaurs: Past Progress and New Frontiers (eds Pittman, M. & Xu, X.) 37–95 (Scientific Publications of the American Museum of Natural History, 2020).95.Benson, R. B. et al. Rates of dinosaur body mass evolution indicate 170 million years of sustained ecological innovation on the avian stem lineage. PLoS Biol. 12, e1001853 (2014).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
96.Lee, M. S., Cau, A., Naish, D. & Dyke, G. J. Sustained miniaturization and anatomical innovation in the dinosaurian ancestors of birds. Science 345, 562–566 (2014).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
97.O’Connor, J. & Zhou, Z. Early evolution of the biological bird: perspectives from new fossil discoveries in China. J. Ornithol. 156, 333–342 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
98.Zhou, Z. & Zhang, F. A precocial avian embryo from the Lower Cretaceous of China. Science 306, 653 (2004).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
99.Mayr, G. Evolution of avian breeding strategies and its relation to the habitat preferences of Mesozoic birds. Evol. Ecol. 31, 131–141 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
100.Arendt, J. D. Adaptive intrinsic growth rates: an integration across taxa. Q. Rev. Biol. 72, 149–177 (1997).Article 

Google Scholar 
101.Jackson, B. E., Segre, P. & Dial, K. P. Precocial development of locomotor performance in a ground-dwelling bird (Alectoris chukar): negotiating a three-dimensional terrestrial environment. Proc. R. Soc. B 276, 3457–3466 (2009).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
102.Colquhoun, I. Comparing the impact of predators on the activity patterns of lemurids and ceboids. Folia Primatol. 77, 143–165 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
103.Maor, R., Dayan, T., Ferguson-Gow, H. & Jones, K. E. Temporal niche expansion in mammals from a nocturnal ancestor after dinosaur extinction. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 1, 1889–1895 (2017).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
104.Wu, Y. Evolutionary origin of nocturnality in birds. eLS 1, 483–489 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
105.Xu, X., Zhou, Z. & Wang, X. The smallest known non-avian theropod dinosaur. Nature 408, 705–708 (2000).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
106.Xu, X. et al. Four-winged dinosaurs from China. Nature 421, 335–340 (2003).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
107.Gong, E., Martin, L. D., Burnham, D. A. & Falk, A. R. The birdlike raptor Sinornithosaurus was venomous. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 107, 766–768 (2010).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
108.Sullivan, C., Xu, X. & O’Connor, J. K. Complexities and novelties in the early evolution of avian flight, as seen in the Mesozoic Yanliao and Jehol Biotas of Northeast China. Palaeoworld 26, 212–229 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
109.Pei, R. et al. Potential for powered flight neared by most close avialan relatives, but few crossed its thresholds. Curr. Biol. 30, 4033–4046 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
110.Turner, A. H., Pol, D., Clarke, J. A., Erickson, G. M. & Norell, M. A. A basal dromaeosaurid and size evolution preceding avian flight. Science 317, 1378–1381 (2007).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
111.Carbone, C., Mace, G. M., Roberts, S. C. & Macdonald, D. W. Energetic constraints on the diet of terrestrial carnivores. Nature 402, 286–288 (1999).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
112.Gittleman, J. L. Carnivore body size: ecological and taxonomic correlates. Oecologia 67, 540–554 (1985).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
113.Radloff, F. G. & Du Toit, J. T. Large predators and their prey in a southern African savanna: a predator’s size determines its prey size range. J. Anim. Ecol. 73, 410–423 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
114.Vézina, A. F. Empirical relationships between predator and prey size among terrestrial vertebrate predators. Oecologia 67, 555–565 (1985).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
115.Rezende, E. L., Bacigalupe, L. D., Nespolo, R. F. & Bozinovic, F. Shrinking dinosaurs and the evolution of endothermy in birds. Sci. Adv. 6, eaaw4486 (2020).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
116.Seebacher, F. Dinosaur body temperatures: the occurrence of endothermy and ectothermy. Paleobiology 29, 105–122 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
117.Chatterjee, S. & Templin, R. in Feathered Dragons: Studies on the Transition from Dinosaurs to Birds (eds Currie, P. J., Kopplehaus, E. B., Shugar, M. A. & Wright, J. L.) 251–281 (Indiana Univ. Press, 2004).118.Hedenström, A. How birds became airborne. Trends Ecol. Evol. 14, 375–376 (1999).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
119.Dudley, R. et al. Gliding and the functional origins of flight: biomechanical novelty or necessity? Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 38, 179–201 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
120.Clemente, C. & Wilson, R. Speed and maneuverability jointly determine escape success during simulated games of escape behaviour. Behav. Ecol. 27, 45–54 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
121.Caro, T. Antipredator Defenses in Birds and Mammals (Univ. Chicago Press, 2005).122.Van den Hout, P. J., Mathot, K. J., Maas, L. R. & Piersma, T. Predator escape tactics in birds: linking ecology and aerodynamics. Behav. Ecol. 21, 16–25 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
123.Wright, N. A., Steadman, D. W. & Witt, C. C. Predictable evolution toward flightlessness in volant island birds. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, 4765–4770 (2016).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
124.Wang, M., Zhou, Z. & Sullivan, C. A fish-eating enantiornithine bird from the Early Cretaceous of China provides evidence of modern avian digestive features. Curr. Biol. 26, 1170–1176 (2016).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
125.Zheng, X. et al. New specimens of Yanornis indicate a piscivorous diet and modern alimentary canal. PLoS ONE 9, e95036 (2014).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
126.Zhou, Z., Zhang, F. & Li, Z. A new Lower Cretaceous bird from China and tooth reduction in early avian evolution. Proc. R. Soc. B 277, 219–227 (2010).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
127.Meredith, R. W., Zhang, G., Gilbert, M. T. P., Jarvis, E. D. & Springer, M. S. Evidence for a single loss of mineralized teeth in the common avian ancestor. Science 346, 1254390 (2014).PubMed 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
128.Lima, S. L. Maximizing feeding efficiency and minimizing time exposed to predators: a trade-off in the black-capped chickadee. Oecologia 66, 60–67 (1985).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
129.Lima, S. L., Valone, T. J. & Caraco, T. Foraging-efficiency-predation-risk trade-off in the grey squirrel. Anim. Behav. 33, 155–165 (1985).Article 

Google Scholar 
130.Verdolin, J. L. Meta-analysis of foraging and predation risk trade-offs in terrestrial systems. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 60, 457–464 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
131.Yang, T.-R. & Sander, P. M. The origin of the bird’s beak: new insights from dinosaur incubation periods. Biol. Lett. 14, 20180090 (2018).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
132.Zhou, Y.-C., Sullivan, C. & Zhang, F. Negligible effect of tooth reduction on body mass in Mesozoic birds. Vert. Palas 57, 38–50 (2019).
Google Scholar 
133.Louchart, A. & Viriot, L. From snout to beak: the loss of teeth in birds. Trends Ecol. Evol. 26, 663–673 (2011).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
134.Randall, D., Burggren, W. & French, K. Eckert Animal Physiology: Mechanisms and Adaptations (W. H. Freeman, 1997).135.Davit‐Béal, T., Tucker, A. S. & Sire, J. Y. Loss of teeth and enamel in tetrapods: fossil record, genetic data and morphological adaptations. J. Anat. 214, 477–501 (2009).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
136.Gill, F. & Donsker, D. IOC World Bird List (v8.2). https://doi.org/10.14344/IOC.ML.8.2 (2018).137.Grabherr, M. G. et al. Full-length transcriptome assembly from RNA-Seq data without a reference genome. Nat. Biotechnol. 29, 644–652 (2011).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
138.Crawford, N. G. et al. A phylogenomic analysis of turtles. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 83, 250–257 (2015).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
139.Guillon, J.-M., Guéry, L., Hulin, V. & Girondot, M. A large phylogeny of turtles (Testudines) using molecular data. Contrib. Zool. 81, 147–158 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
140.Jønsson, K. A. & Fjeldså, J. A phylogenetic supertree of oscine passerine birds (Aves: Passeri). Zool. Scr. 35, 149–186 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
141.McKay, B. D., Barker, F. K., Mays, H. L. Jr, Doucet, S. M. & Hill, G. E. A molecular phylogenetic hypothesis for the manakins (Aves: Pipridae). Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 55, 733–737 (2010).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
142.Oaks, J. R. A time‐calibrated species tree of Crocodylia reveals a recent radiation of the true crocodiles. Evolution 65, 3285–3297 (2011).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
143.Pyron, R. A., Burbrink, F. T. & Wiens, J. J. A phylogeny and revised classification of Squamata, including 4161 species of lizards and snakes. BMC Evol. Biol. 13, 93 (2013).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
144.Jarvis, E. D. et al. Whole-genome analyses resolve early branches in the tree of life of modern birds. Science 346, 1320–1331 (2014).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
145.Wilman, H. et al. EltonTraits 1.0: species‐level foraging attributes of the world’s birds and mammals. Ecology 95, 2027–2027 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
146.Brusatte, S. L., O’Connor, J. K. & Jarvis, E. D. The origin and diversification of birds. Curr. Biol. 25, R888–R898 (2015).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar  More

1.Parmesan, C. & Yohe, G. A globally coherent fingerprint of climate change impacts across natural systems. Nature 421, 37–42 (2003).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
2.Poloczanska, E. S. et al. Global imprint of climate change on marine life. Nat. Clim. Change 3, 919–925 (2013).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 
Article 

Google Scholar 
4.Lenoir, J. & Svenning, J.-C. Climate-related range shifts—a global multidimensional synthesis and new research directions. Ecography 38, 15–28 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
5.Robinson, L. M. et al. Pushing the limits in marine species distribution modelling: lessons from the land present challenges and opportunities. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 20, 789–802 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
6.Guisan, A. et al. Making better biogeographical predictions of species’ distributions. J. Appl. Ecol. 43, 386–392 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
7.Wilson, R. P., Culik, B., Coria, N. R., Adelung, D. & Spairani, H. J. Foraging rhythms in Adélie penguins (Pygoscelis adeliae) at Hope Bay, Antarctica; determination and control. Polar Biol. 10, 161–165 (1989).
Google Scholar 
8.Aksnes, D. & Utne, A. C. W. A revised model of visual range in fish. Sarsia 4827, 37–41 (1997).
Google Scholar 
9.Johansen, R., Barrett, R. T. & Pedersen, T. Foraging strategies of great cormorants Phalacrocorax carbo carbo wintering north of the Arctic Circle. Bird Study 48, 59–67 (2001).Article 

Google Scholar 
10.Varpe, Ø. Life history adaptations to seasonality. Integr. Comp. Biol. 57, 943–960 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
11.Poloczanska, E. S. et al. Responses of marine organisms to climate change across oceans. Front. Mar. Sci. 3, 62 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
12.Saikkonen, K. et al. Climate change-driven species’ range shifts filtered by photoperiodism. Nat. Clim. Change 2, 239–242 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
13.Bradshaw, W. E. & Holzapfel, C. M. Light, time, and the physiology of biotic response to rapid climate change in animals. Annu. Rev. Physiol. 72, 147–166 (2010).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
14.Huffeldt, N. P. Photic barriers to poleward range-shifts. Trends Ecol. Evol. 35, 652–655 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
15.Sunday, J. M., Bates, A. E. & Dulvy, N. K. Thermal tolerance and the global redistribution of animals. Nat. Clim. Change 2, 686–690 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
16.Lenoir, J. et al. Species better track climate warming in the oceans than on land. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 4, 1044–1059 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
17.Kaartvedt, S. Photoperiod may constrain the effect of global warming in arctic marine systems. J. Plankton Res. 30, 1203–1206 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
18.Sundby, S., Drinkwater, K. F. & Kjesbu, O. S. The North Atlantic spring-bloom system—where the changing climate meets the winter dark. Front. Mar. Sci. 3, 28 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
19.Langbehn, T. J. & Varpe, Ø. Sea-ice loss boosts visual search: fish foraging and changing pelagic interactions in polar oceans. Glob. Chang. Biol. 23, 5318–5330 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
20.Irigoien, X., Klevjer, T. A. & Røstad, A. Large mesopelagic fishes biomass and trophic efficiency in the open ocean. Nat. Commun. 5, 3271 (2014).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
21.Geoffroy, M. et al. Mesopelagic sound scattering layers of the high Arctic: seasonal variations in biomass, species assemblage, and trophic relationships. Front. Mar. Sci. 6, 364 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
22.Jobling, M. Fish Bioenergetics (Chapman & Hall, 1994).23.Ljungström, G., Claireaux, M., Fiksen, Ø. & Jørgensen, C. Body size adaptions under climate change: zooplankton community more important than temperature or food abundance in model of a zooplanktivorous fish. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 636, 1–18 (2020).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
24.Enberg, K. et al. Fishing-induced evolution of growth: concepts, mechanisms and the empirical evidence. Mar. Ecol. 33, 1–25 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
25.Langbehn, T., Aksnes, D., Kaartvedt, S., Fiksen, Ø. & Jørgensen, C. Light comfort zone in a mesopelagic fish emerges from adaptive behaviour along a latitudinal gradient. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 623, 161–174 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
26.Røstad, A., Kaartvedt, S. & Aksnes, D. L. Erratum to ‘Light comfort zones of mesopelagic acoustic scattering layers in two contrasting optical environments’ [Deep Sea Res. I 113 (2016) 1–6]. Deep Sea Res. I Oceanogr. Res. Pap. 114, 162–164 (2016).27.Røstad, A., Kaartvedt, S. & Aksnes, D. L. Light comfort zones of mesopelagic acoustic scattering layers in two contrasting optical environments. Deep Sea Res. I Oceanogr. Res. Pap. 113, 1–6 (2016).28.Clark, C. W. & Levy, D. A. Diel vertical migrations by juvenile sockeye salmon and the antipredation window. Am. Nat. 131, 271–290 (1988).Article 

Google Scholar 
29.Scheuerell, M. D. & Schindler, D. E. Diel vertical migration by juvenile sockeye salmon: empirical evidence for the antipredation window. Ecology 84, 1713–1720 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
30.Boyce, M. S. Seasonality and patterns of natural selection for life histories. Am. Nat. 114, 569–583 (1979).Article 

Google Scholar 
31.Roff, D. A. The Evolution of Life Histories: Theory and Analysis (Chapman & Hall, 1992).32.Stearns, S. C. The Evolution of Life Histories (Oxford University Press, 1992).33.Varpe, Ø., Jørgensen, C., Tarling, G. A. & Fiksen, Ø. The adaptive value of energy storage and capital breeding in seasonal environments. Oikos 118, 363–370 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
34.Hagen, W. & Auel, H. Seasonal adaptations and the role of lipids in oceanic zooplankton. Zoology 104, 313–326 (2001).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
35.Robinson, N. M., Nelson, W. A., Costello, M. J., Sutherland, J. E. & Lundquist, C. J. A systematic review of marine-based species distribution models (SDMs) with recommendations for best practice. Front. Mar. Sci. 4, 421 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
36.Jones, M. C. & Cheung, W. W. L. Multi-model ensemble projections of climate change effects on global marine biodiversity. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 72, 741–752 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
37.García Molinos, J. et al. Climate velocity and the future global redistribution of marine biodiversity. Nat. Clim. Change 6, 83–88 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
38.Cheung, W. W. L. et al. Projecting global marine biodiversity impacts under climate change scenarios. Fish. Fish. 10, 235–251 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
39.Sinclair, S. J., White, M. D. & Newell, G. R. How useful are species distribution models for managing biodiversity under future climates? Ecol. Soc. 15, 8 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
40.Twiname, S. et al. A cross-scale framework to support a mechanistic understanding and modelling of marine climate-driven species redistribution, from individuals to communities. Ecography 43, 1764–1778 (2020).41.Dullinger, S. et al. Extinction debt of high-mountain plants under twenty-first-century climate change. Nat. Clim. Change 2, 619–622 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
42.Bush, A. et al. Incorporating evolutionary adaptation in species distribution modelling reduces projected vulnerability to climate change. Ecol. Lett. 19, 1468–1478 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
43.Cheung, W. W. L., Dunne, J., Sarmiento, J. L. & Pauly, D. Integrating ecophysiology and plankton dynamics into projected maximum fisheries catch potential under climate change in the Northeast Atlantic. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 68, 1008–1018 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
44.Saunders, R. A., Collins, M. A., Stowasser, G. & Tarling, G. A. Southern Ocean mesopelagic fish communities in the Scotia Sea are sustained by mass immigration. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 569, 173–185 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
45.Audzijonyte, A. et al. Atlantis: a spatially explicit end-to-end marine ecosystem model with dynamically integrated physics, ecology and socio-economic modules. Methods Ecol. Evol. 10, 1814–1819 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
46.Alerstam, T., Hedenström, A. & Åkesson, S. Long-distance migration: evolution and determinants. Oikos 103, 247–260 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
47.Nøttestad, L., Giske, J., Holst, J. C. & Huse, G. A length-based hypothesis for feeding migrations in pelagic fish. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 56, 26–34 (1999).Article 

Google Scholar 
48.Roff, D. A. The evolution of migration and some life history parameters in marine fishes. Environ. Biol. Fishes 22, 133–146 (1988).Article 

Google Scholar 
49.Alder, J., Campbell, B., Karpouzi, V., Kaschner, K. & Pauly, D. Forage fish: from ecosystems to markets. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 33, 153–166 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
50.Houston, A. I. & McNamara, J. M. Models of Adaptive Behaviour: An Approach Based on State (Cambridge University Press, 1999).51.Clark, C. W. & Mangel, M. Dynamic State Variable Models in Ecology (Oxford University Press, 2000).52.Hoegh-Guldberg, O. et al. in Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability (eds Barros, V. R. et al) 1655 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2014).53.Seidov, D. Greenland–Iceland–Norwegian Seas Regional Climatology version 2 (Regional 497 Climatology Team, NOAA/NCEI, 2018).54.Drange, H. & Simonsen, K. Formulation of Air–Sea Fluxes in the ESOP2 Version of MICOM (1996). More

1.Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Global Warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC special report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty (World Meteorological Organization, 2018).2.Rogelj, J. et al. A new scenario logic for the Paris Agreement long-term temperature goal. Nature 573, 357–363 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
3.Minx, J. C. et al. Negative emissions — part 1: research landscape and synthesis. Environ. Res. Lett. 13, 063001 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
4.Fuss, S. et al. Betting on negative emissions. Nat. Clim. Change 4, 850–853 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
5.Gattuso, J.-P., Williamson, P., Duarte, C. M. & Magnan, A. K. The potential for ocean-based climate action: negative emissions technologies and beyond. Front. Clim. 2, 37 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
6.National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM). Negative Emissions Technologies and Reliable Sequestration (The National Academies Press, 2019).
Google Scholar 
7.IGBP Terrestrial Carbon Working Group. The terrestrial carbon cycle: implications for the Kyoto Protocol. Science 280, 1393–1394 (1998).Article 

Google Scholar 
8.Friedlingstein, P. et al. Global carbon budget 2019. Earth Syst. Sci. Data 11, 1783–1838 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
9.Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Proceedings of the IPCC Conference on Tropical Forestry Response Options to Global Climate Change (US Environmental Protection Agency, 1990).10.Griscom, B. W. et al. Natural climate solutions. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, 11645–11650 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
11.Hua, F. et al. Opportunities for biodiversity gains under the world’s largest reforestation programme. Nat. Commun. 7, 12717 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
12.Putz, F. E. et al. Improved tropical forest management for carbon retention. PLoS Biol. 6, e166 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
13.Moomaw, W. R., Masino, S. A. & Faison, E. K. Intact forests in the United States: proforestation mitigates climate change and serves the greatest good. Front. For. Glob. Change 2, 27 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
14.Nolan, R. H. et al. Safeguarding reforestation efforts against changes in climate and disturbance regimes. For. Ecol. Manag. 424, 458–467 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
15.Morecroft, M. D. et al. Measuring the success of climate change adaptation and mitigation in terrestrial ecosystems. Science 366, eaaw9256 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
16.Smith, P. et al. Towards an integrated global framework to assess the impacts of land use and management change on soil carbon: current capability and future vision. Glob. Change Biol. 18, 2089–2101 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
17.Bastin, J.-F. et al. The global tree restoration potential. Science 365, 76–79 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
18.Roe, S. et al. Contribution of the land sector to a 1.5 °C world. Nat. Clim. Change 9, 817–828 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
19.Paustian, K. et al. Soil C sequestration as a biological negative emission strategy. Front. Clim. 1, 8 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
20.Seddon, N. et al. Getting the message right on nature-based solutions to climate change. Glob. Change Biol. 27, 1518–1546 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
21.World Resources Institute. Global Forest Watch https://www.wri.org/our-work/project/global-forest-watch (2014).22.Forest Trends’ Ecosystem Marketplace. Financing Emissions Reductions for the Future: State of the Voluntary Carbon Markets 2019 (Forest Trends, 2019).23.Forest Trends’ Ecosystem Marketplace. Fertile Ground: State of Forest Carbon Finance 2017 (Forest Trends, 2017).24.United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The Clean Development Mechanism Project Search https://cdm.unfccc.int/Projects/projsearch.html.25.Pozo, C., Galán-Martín, Á., Reiner, D. M., Mac Dowell, N. & Guillén-Gosálbez, G. Equity in allocating carbon dioxide removal quotas. Nat. Clim. Change 10, 640–646 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
26.Mulligan, J. A. et al. CarbonShot: Federal Policy Options for Carbon Removal in the United States (World Resources Institute, 2020).27.Fargione, J. E. et al. Natural climate solutions for the United States. Sci. Adv. 4, eaat1869 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
28.Cameron, D. R., Marvin, D. C., Remucal, J. M. & Passero, M. C. Ecosystem management and land conservation can substantially contribute to California’s climate mitigation goals. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, 12833–12838 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
29.Baker, S. E. et al. Getting to Neutral: Options for Negative Carbon Emissions in California (Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, 2020).30.Field, C. B. & Mach, K. J. Rightsizing carbon dioxide removal. Science 356, 706–707 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
31.Prentice, I. C. et al. in Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis Ch. 3 (eds Houghton, J. T. et al.) 185–237 (World Meteorological Organization, 2001).32.Mackey, B. et al. Untangling the confusion around land carbon science and climate change mitigation policy. Nat. Clim. Change 3, 552–557 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
33.Hurteau, M. D., Koch, G. W. & Hungate, B. A. Carbon protection and fire risk reduction: toward a full accounting of forest carbon offsets. Front. Ecol. Environ. 6, 493–498 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
34.McDowell, N. G. et al. Pervasive shifts in forest dynamics in a changing world. Science 368, eaaz9463 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
35.Anderegg, W. R. L. et al. Climate-driven risks to the climate mitigation potential of forests. Science 368, eaaz7005 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
36.Houghton, R. A. & Nassikas, A. A. Global and regional fluxes of carbon from land use and land cover change 1850–2015. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 31, 456–472 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
37.DeFries, R. S., Field, C. B., Fung, I., Collatz, G. J. & Bounoua, L. Combining satellite data and biogeochemical models to estimate global effects of human-induced land cover change on carbon emissions and primary productivity. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 13, 803–815 (1999).Article 

Google Scholar 
38.Hansis, E., Davis, S. J. & Pongratz, J. Relevance of methodological choices for accounting of land use change carbon fluxes. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 29, 1230–1246 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
39.Erb, K.-H. et al. Unexpectedly large impact of forest management and grazing on global vegetation biomass. Nature 553, 73–76 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
40.Sanderman, J., Hengl, T. & Fiske, G. J. Soil carbon debt of 12,000 years of human land use. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, 9575–9580 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
41.Churkina, G. et al. Buildings as a global carbon sink. Nat. Sustain. 3, 269–276 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
42.Stallard, R. F. Terrestrial sedimentation and the carbon cycle: Coupling weathering and erosion to carbon burial. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 12, 231–257 (1998).Article 

Google Scholar 
43.Kondo, M. et al. Plant regrowth as a driver of recent enhancement of terrestrial CO2 uptake. Geophys. Res. Lett. 45, 4820–4830 (2018).Article 

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

Google Scholar 
45.Pugh, T. A. M. et al. Role of forest regrowth in global carbon sink dynamics. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 119, 4382–4387 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
46.Nabuurs, G.-J. et al. First signs of carbon sink saturation in European forest biomass. Nat. Clim. Change 3, 792–796 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
47.Peñuelas, J. et al. Shifting from a fertilization-dominated to a warming-dominated period. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 1, 1438–1445 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
48.Hubau, W. et al. Asynchronous carbon sink saturation in African and Amazonian tropical forests. Nature 579, 80–87 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
49.Griscom, B. W. et al. National mitigation potential from natural climate solutions in the tropics. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 375, 20190126 (2020).Article 

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

Google Scholar 
51.Krause, A. et al. Large uncertainty in carbon uptake potential of land-based climate-change mitigation efforts. Glob. Change Biol. 24, 3025–3038 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
52.Jones, C. D. et al. Simulating the Earth system response to negative emissions. Environ. Res. Lett. 11, 095012 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
53.Jones, C. D. et al. C4MIP — the coupled climate–carbon cycle model intercomparison project: experimental protocol for CMIP6. Geosci. Model Dev. 9, 2853–2880 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
54.Lawrence, D. M. et al. The Land Use Model Intercomparison Project (LUMIP) contribution to CMIP6: rationale and experimental design. Geosci. Model Dev. 9, 2973–2998 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
55.Fernández-Martínez, M. et al. Global trends in carbon sinks and their relationships with CO2 and temperature. Nat. Clim. Change 9, 73–79 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
56.Terrer, C. et al. Nitrogen and phosphorus constrain the CO2 fertilization of global plant biomass. Nat. Clim. Change 9, 684–689 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
57.Hong, S. et al. Divergent responses of soil organic carbon to afforestation. Nat. Sustain. 3, 694–700 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
58.Li, D., Niu, S. & Luo, Y. Global patterns of the dynamics of soil carbon and nitrogen stocks following afforestation: a meta-analysis. New Phytol. 195, 172–181 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
59.Baldocchi, D. & Penuelas, J. The physics and ecology of mining carbon dioxide from the atmosphere by ecosystems. Glob. Change Biol. 25, 1191–1197 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
60.Gómez-González, S., Ochoa-Hueso, R. & Pausas, J. G. Afforestation falls short as a biodiversity strategy. Science 368, 1439 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
61.Bellamy, R. & Osaka, S. Unnatural climate solutions. Nat. Clim. Change 10, 98–99 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
62.Indigo Ag. Indigo launches The Terraton Initiative. https://www.indigoag.com/en-au/pages/news/indigo-launches-the-terraton-initiative (2019).63.Schlesinger, W. H. & Amundson, R. Managing for soil carbon sequestration: Let’s get realistic. Glob. Change Biol. 25, 386–389 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
64.Betts, R. A. Offset of the potential carbon sink from boreal forestation by decreases in surface albedo. Nature 408, 187–190 (2000).Article 

Google Scholar 
65.Bala, G. et al. Combined climate and carbon-cycle effects of large-scale deforestation. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 104, 6550–6555 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
66.Jackson, R. B. et al. Protecting climate with forests. Environ. Res. Lett. 3, 044006 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
67.Li, Y. et al. Local cooling and warming effects of forests based on satellite observations. Nat. Commun. 6, 6603 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
68.Prevedello, J. A., Winck, G. R., Weber, M. M., Nichols, E. & Sinervo, B. Impacts of forestation and deforestation on local temperature across the globe. PloS ONE 13, e0213368 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
69.Bonan, G. B. Forests and climate change: forcings, feedbacks, and the climate benefits of forests. Science 320, 1444–1449 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
70.Zhang, Q. et al. Reforestation and surface cooling in temperate zones: mechanisms and implications. Glob. Change Biol. 26, 3384–3401 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
71.California Air Resources Board. Compliance Offset Program. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/compliance-offset-program (2013).72.Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2019 Refinement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (2019).73.Hemes, K. S., Chamberlain, S. D., Eichelmann, E., Knox, S. H. & Baldocchi, D. D. A biogeochemical compromise: the high methane cost of sequestering carbon in restored wetlands. Geophys. Res. Lett. 45, 6081–6091 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
74.CarbonPlan Team. The cost of temporary carbon removal (2020).75.Holl, K. D. & Brancalion, P. H. S. Tree planting is not a simple solution. Science 368, 580–581 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
76.Chen, W., Meng, J., Han, X., Lan, Y. & Zhang, W. Past, present, and future of biochar. Biochar 1, 75–87 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
77.Nemet, G. F. et al. Negative emissions — part 3: innovation and upscaling. Environ. Res. Lett. 13, 063003 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
78.Chazdon, R. & Brancalion, P. Restoring forests as a means to many ends. Science 365, 24–25 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
79.Kalt, G. et al. Natural climate solutions versus bioenergy: Can carbon benefits of natural succession compete with bioenergy from short rotation coppice. GCB Bioenergy 11, 1283–1297 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
80.Seddon, N. et al. Understanding the value and limits of nature-based solutions to climate change and other global challenges. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 375, 20190120 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
81.Seddon, N., Turner, B., Berry, P., Chausson, A. & Girardin, C. A. J. Grounding nature-based climate solutions in sound biodiversity science. Nat. Clim. Change 9, 84–87 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
82.Dass, P., Houlton, B. Z., Wang, Y. & Warlind, D. Grasslands may be more reliable carbon sinks than forests in California. Environ. Res. Lett. 13, 074027 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
83.Jackson, R. B. et al. Trading water for carbon with biological carbon sequestration. Science 310, 1944–1947 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
84.Buck, H. J. After Geoengineering: Climate Tragedy, Repair, and Restoration (Verso Books, 2019).85.House, J. I., Prentice, I. C. & Le Quere, C. Maximum impacts of future reforestation or deforestation on atmospheric CO2. Glob. Change Biol. 8, 1047–1052 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
86.Boysen, L. R., Lucht, W. & Gerten, D. Trade-offs for food production, nature conservation and climate limit the terrestrial carbon dioxide removal potential. Glob. Change Biol. 23, 4303–4317 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
87.Lewis, S. L., Wheeler, C. E., Mitchard, E. T. A. & Koch, A. Restoring natural forests is the best way to remove atmospheric carbon. Nature 568, 25–28 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
88.Smith, P. et al. How much land-based greenhouse gas mitigation can be achieved without compromising food security and environmental goals. Glob. Change Biol. 19, 2285–2302 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
89.Popp, A. et al. The economic potential of bioenergy for climate change mitigation with special attention given to implications for the land system. Environ. Res. Lett. 6, 034017 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
90.Popp, A. et al. Land-use futures in the shared socio-economic pathways. Glob. Environ. Change 42, 331–345 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
91.Turner, P. A., Field, C. B., Lobell, D. B., Sanchez, D. L. & Mach, K. J. Unprecedented rates of land-use transformation in modelled climate change mitigation pathways. Nat. Sustain. 1, 240–245 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
92.Campbell, J. E., Lobell, D. B., Genova, R. C. & Field, C. B. The global potential of bioenergy on abandoned agriculture lands. Environ. Sci. Technol. 42, 5791–5794 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
93.Bell, S., Barriocanal, C., Terrer, C. & Rosell-Melé, A. Management opportunities for soil carbon sequestration following agricultural land abandonment. Environ. Sci. Policy 108, 104–111 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
94.FAO and UNEP. The State of the World’s Forests 2020. Forests, biodiversity, and people. http://www.fao.org/3/ca8642en/ca8642en.pdf (2020).95.The Food and Land Use Coalition. Growing Better: Ten Critical Transitions to Transform Food and Land Use. https://www.foodandlandusecoalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/FOLU-GrowingBetter-GlobalReport.pdf (2019).96.Smith, P. et al. Land-management options for greenhouse gas removal and their impacts on ecosystem services and the sustainable development goals. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 44, 255–286 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
97.Dorner, P. & Thiesenhusen, W. Land Tenure and Deforestation: Interactions and Environmental Implications (United Nations Research Institute for Social Development, 1992).98.Ferreira, S. Deforestation, property rights, and international trade. Land Econ. 80, 174–193 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
99.Robinson, B. E., Holland, M. B. & Naughton-Treves, L. Does secure land tenure save forests? A meta-analysis of the relationship between land tenure and tropical deforestation. Glob. Environ. Change 29, 281–293 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
100.Laurance, W. F. Reflections on the tropical deforestation crisis. Biol. Conserv. 91, 109–117 (1999).Article 

Google Scholar 
101.Murtazashvili, I., Murtazashvili, J. & Salahodjaev, R. Trust and deforestation: a cross-country comparison. For. Policy Econ. 101, 111–119 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
102.Koyuncu, C. & Yilmaz, R. The impact of corruption on deforestation: a cross-country evidence. J. Dev. Areas 42, 213–222 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
103.Pailler, S. Re-election incentives and deforestation cycles in the Brazilian Amazon. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 88, 345–365 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
104.United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Decision 4/CP.15 Methodological guidance for activities relating to reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation and the role of conservation, sustainable management of forests and enhancement of forest carbon stocks in developing countries (2009).105.Anderson, C. M., Field, C. B. & Mach, K. J. Forest offsets partner climate-change mitigation with conservation. Front. Ecol. Environ. 15, 359–365 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
106.Merenlender, A. M., Huntsinger, L., Guthey, G. & Fairfax, S. K. Land trusts and conservation easements: who is conserving what for whom. Conserv. Biol. 18, 65–75 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
107.Alix-Garcia, J. & Wolff, H. Payment for ecosystem services from forests. Annu. Rev. Resour. Econ. 6, 361–380 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
108.Jayachandran, S. et al. Cash for carbon: a randomized trial of payments for ecosystem services to reduce deforestation. Science 357, 267–273 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
109.Biggs, E. M. et al. Sustainable development and the water–energy–food nexus: a perspective on livelihoods. Environ. Sci. Policy 54, 389–397 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
110.Buchner, B. et al. Global Landscape of Climate Finance 2019 (Climate Policy Initiative, 2019).111.The Food and Land Use Coalition. Nature for Net-Zero: consultation document on the need to raise corporate ambition towards nature-based net-zero emissions (2020).112.Asner, G. P. et al. A universal airborne LiDAR approach for tropical forest carbon mapping. Oecologia 168, 1147–1160 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
113.Schimel, D. & Schneider, F. D., JPL Carbon and Ecosystem Participants. Flux towers in the sky: global ecology from space. New Phytol. 224, 570–584 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
114.Kurz, W. A., Stinson, G., Rampley, G. J., Dymond, C. C. & Neilson, E. T. Risk of natural disturbances makes future contribution of Canada’s forests to the global carbon cycle highly uncertain. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 105, 1551–1555 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
115.Marland, G., Fruit, K. & Sedjo, R. Accounting for sequestered carbon: the question of permanence. Environ. Sci. Policy 4, 259–268 (2001).Article 

Google Scholar 
116.Sedjo, R. A., Marland, G. & Fruit, K. Renting carbon offsets: the question of permanence. Resources for the Future Manuscript 12 pp (2001).117.Marland, G. & Marland, E. Trading permanent and temporary carbon emissions credits. Clim. Change 95, 465 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
118.van Oosterzee, P., Blignaut, J. & Bradshaw, C. J. A. iREDD hedges against avoided deforestation’s unholy trinity of leakage, permanence and additionality. Conserv. Lett. 5, 266–273 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
119.May, P. J. Policy learning and failure. J. Public Policy 12, 331–354 (1992).Article 

Google Scholar 
120.Geist, H. J. & Lambin, E. F. Proximate causes and underlying driving forces of tropical deforestation. BioScience 52, 143–150 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
121.Zeng, Y. et al. Economic and social constraints on reforestation for climate mitigation in Southeast Asia. Nat. Clim. Change 10, 842–844 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
122.Allen, C. D., Breshears, D. D. & McDowell, N. G. On underestimation of global vulnerability to tree mortality and forest die-off from hotter drought in the Anthropocene. Ecosphere 6, 1–55 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
123.Anderson, C. M. et al. Natural climate solutions are not enough. Science 363, 933–934 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
124.Lal, R. et al. The carbon sequestration potential of terrestrial ecosystems. J. Soil Water Conserv. 73, 145A–152A (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
125.Arora, V. K. & Montenegro, A. Small temperature benefits provided by realistic afforestation efforts. Nat. Geosci. 4, 514–518 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
126.National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM). Climate Intervention: Carbon Dioxide Removal and Reliable Sequestration (The National Academies Press, 2015).127.Chabbi, A. et al. Aligning agriculture and climate policy. Nat. Clim. Change 7, 307–309 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
128.Vaughan, N. E. & Lenton, T. M. A review of climate geoengineering proposals. Clim. Change 109, 745–790 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
129.Houghton, R. A., Unruh, J. D. & Lefebvre, P. A. Current land cover in the tropics and its potential for sequestering carbon. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 7, 305–320 (1993).Article 

Google Scholar 
130.Houghton, R. A. & Nassikas, A. A. Negative emissions from stopping deforestation and forest degradation, globally. Glob. Change Biol. 24, 350–359 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
131.Busch, J. et al. Potential for low-cost carbon dioxide removal through tropical reforestation. Nat. Clim. Change 9, 463–466 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
132.Nilsson, S. & Schopfhauser, W. The carbon-sequestration potential of a global afforestation program. Clim. Change 30, 267–293 (1995).Article 

Google Scholar 
133.Winjum, J. K., Dixon, R. K. & Schroeder, P. E. Estimating the global potential of forest and agroforest management practices to sequester carbon. Water Air Soil Pollut. 64, 213–227 (1992).Article 

Google Scholar 
134.Sohngen, B. & Sedjo, R. Carbon sequestration in global forests under different carbon price regimes. Energy J. 27, 109–126 (2006).
Google Scholar 
135.Mayer, A., Hausfather, Z., Jones, A. D. & Silver, W. L. The potential of agricultural land management to contribute to lower global surface temperatures. Sci. Adv. 4, eaaq0932 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
136.van Minnen, J. G., Strengers, B. J., Eickhout, B., Swart, R. J. & Leemans, R. Quantifying the effectiveness of climate change mitigation through forest plantations and carbon sequestration with an integrated land-use model. Carbon Balance Manag. 3, 3 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
137.Lal, R. Soil carbon sequestration to mitigate climate change. Geoderma 123, 1–22 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
138.Sathaye, J., Makundi, W., Dale, L., Chan, P. & Andrasko, K. GHG mitigation potential, costs and benefits in global forests: a dynamic partial equilibrium approach. Energy J. 27, 127–162 (2006).
Google Scholar 
139.Canadell, J. G. & Schulze, E. D. Global potential of biospheric carbon management for climate mitigation. Nat. Commun. 5, 5282 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
140.Zomer, R. J., Bossio, D. A., Sommer, R. & Verchot, L. V. Global sequestration potential of increased organic carbon in cropland soils. Sci. Rep. 7, 15554 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
141.Caldecott, B., Lomax, G. & Workman, M. Stranded Carbon Assets and Negative Emissions Technologies (Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment, 2015).142.Chazdon, R. L. et al. Carbon sequestration potential of second-growth forest regeneration in the Latin American tropics. Sci. Adv. 2, e1501639 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar  More

1.Díaz, S. et al. Summary for Policymakers of the Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES Secretariat, 2019).2.Paganini, M., Leidner, A. K., Geller, G., Turner, W. & Wegmann, M. The role of space agencies in remotely sensed essential biodiversity variables. Remote Sens. Ecol. Conserv. 2, 132–140 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
3.What are EBVs? GEO BON https://geobon.org/ebvs/what-are-ebvs/ (2020).4.Pereira, H. M. et al. Essential biodiversity variables. Science 339, 277–278 (2013).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

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

Google Scholar 
6.Navarro, L. M. et al. Monitoring biodiversity change through effective global coordination. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 29, 158–169 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
7.Pettorelli, N. et al. Framing the concept of satellite remote sensing essential biodiversity variables: challenges and future directions. Remote Sens. Ecol. Conserv. 2, 122–131 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
8.Lausch, A. et al. Understanding forest health with remote sensing, part III: requirements for a scalable multi-source forest health monitoring network based on data science approaches. Remote Sens. 10, 1120 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
9.Barga, R., Gannon, D. & Reed, D. The client and the cloud democratizing research computing. IEEE Internet Comput. 15, 72–75 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
10.Muller-Karger, F. E. et al. Satellite sensor requirements for monitoring essential biodiversity variables of coastal ecosystems. Ecol. Appl. 28, 749–760 (2018).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
11.O’Connor, B. et al. Earth observation as a tool for tracking progress towards the Aichi Biodiversity Targets. Remote Sens. Ecol. Conserv. 1, 19–28 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
12.Geijzendorffer, I. R. et al. Bridging the gap between biodiversity data and policy reporting needs: an essential biodiversity variables perspective. J. Appl. Ecol. 53, 1341–1350 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
13.Rohde, S., Hostmann, M., Peter, A. & Ewald, K. C. Room for rivers: an integrative search strategy for floodplain restoration. Landsc. Urban Plan. 78, 50–70 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
14.Belward, A. The Global Observing System for Climate: Implementation Needs Report No. GCOS-200 (Global Climate Observing System, 2016).15.Bojinski, S. et al. The concept of essential climate variables in support of climate research, applications, and policy. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 95, 1431–1443 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
16.Wu, J. G. Effects of changing scale on landscape pattern analysis: scaling relations. Landsc. Ecol. 19, 125–138 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
17.Lake, P. S. Disturbance, patchiness, and diversity in streams. J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc. 19, 573–592 (2000).Article 

Google Scholar 
18.Graves, S. J. et al. Tree species abundance predictions in a tropical agricultural landscape with a supervised classification model and imbalanced data. Remote Sens. 8, 161 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
19.Schlerf, M., Atzberger, C. & Hill, J. Remote sensing of forest biophysical variables using HyMap imaging spectrometer data. Remote Sens. Environ. 95, 177–194 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
20.Xue, Y. F., Wang, T. J. & Skidmore, A. K. Automatic counting of large mammals from very high resolution panchromatic satellite imagery. Remote Sens. 9, 878 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
21.Zhao, M. S., Heinsch, F. A., Nemani, R. R. & Running, S. W. Improvements of the MODIS terrestrial gross and net primary production global data set. Remote Sens. Environ. 95, 164–176 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
22.Myneni, R. B. et al. Global products of vegetation leaf area and fraction absorbed PAR from year one of MODIS data. Remote Sens. Environ. 83, 214–231 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
23.Curran, P. J., Dungan, J. L. & Peterson, D. L. Estimating the foliar biochemical concentration of leaves with reflectance spectrometry testing the Kokaly and Clark methodologies. Remote Sens. Environ. 76, 349–359 (2001).Article 

Google Scholar 
24.Homolova, L., Maenovsky, Z., Clevers, J., Garcia-Santos, G. & Schaeprnan, M. E. Review of optical-based remote sensing for plant trait mapping. Ecol. Complex. 15, 1–16 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
25.Khosravipour, A., Skidmore, A. K. & Isenburg, M. Generating spike-free digital surface models using LiDAR raw point clouds: a new approach for forestry applications. Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinf. 52, 104–114 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
26.Verger, A. & Descals, A. Fraction of Absorbed Photosynthetically Active Radiation (FAPAR)—300 m Version 1; Algorithm Theoretical Basis Document (ATBD), Issue 1.00 (Framework Service Contract No. 199494-JRC) (Copernicus Global Land Operations CGLOPS-1, 2020).27.Copernicus Global Land Service: FAPAR Copernicus https://land.copernicus.eu/global/about (2020).28.Schmidt, K. S. et al. Mapping coastal vegetation using an expert system and hyperspectral imagery. Photogramm. Eng. Remote Sens. 70, 703–715 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
29.Arvor, D., Durieux, L., Andres, S. & Laporte, M. A. Advances in geographic object-based image analysis with ontologies: a review of main contributions and limitations from a remote sensing perspective. ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote Sens. 82, 125–137 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
30.Lucas, R., Rowlands, A., Brown, A., Keyworth, S. & Bunting, P. Rule-based classification of multi-temporal satellite imagery for habitat and agricultural land cover mapping. ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote Sens. 62, 165–185 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
31.Skidmore, A. K. An expert system classifies eucalypt forest types using Landsat thematic mapper data and a digital terrain model. Photogramm. Eng. Remote Sens. 55, 1449–1464 (1989).
Google Scholar 
32.Tuanmu, M. N. & Jetz, W. A global 1-km consensus land-cover product for biodiversity and ecosystem modelling. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 23, 1031–1045 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
33.Lausch, A. et al. Understanding and quantifying landscape structure—a review on relevant process characteristics, data models and landscape metrics. Ecol. Model. 295, 31–41 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
34.Buchhorn, M. et al. Copernicus global land cover layers—Collection 2. Remote Sens. 12, 1044 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
35.Herkt, K. M. B., Skidmore, A. K. & Fahr, J. Macroecological conclusions based on IUCN expert maps: a call for caution. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 26, 930–941 (2017).Article 

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

Google Scholar 
37.Pekel, J., Cottam, A., Gorelick, N. & Belward, A. S. High-resolution mapping of global surface water and its long-term changes. Nature 540, 418–422 (2016).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
38.Ye, H. et al. Improving remote sensing-based net primary production estimation in the grazed land with defoliation formulation model. J. Mt. Sci. 16, 323–336 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
39.Curran, P. J. & Steele, C. M. MERIS: the re-branding of an ocean sensor. Int. J. Remote Sens. 26, 1781–1798 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
40.Garrigues, S., Allard, D., Baret, F. & Weiss, M. Influence of landscape spatial heterogeneity on the non-linear estimation of leaf area index from moderate spatial resolution remote sensing data. Remote Sens. Environ. 105, 286–298 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
41.Wu, S. B. et al. Monitoring tree-crown scale autumn leaf phenology in a temperate forest with an integration of PlanetScope and drone remote sensing observations. ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote Sens. 171, 36–48 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
42.Salcedo-Sanz, S. et al. Machine learning information fusion in Earth observation: a comprehensive review of methods, applications and data sources. Inf. Fusion 63, 256–272 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
43.Kissling, W. D. et al. Building essential biodiversity variables (EBVs) of species distribution and abundance at a global scale. Biol. Rev. 93, 600–625 (2018).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
44.Healy, C., Gotelli, N. J. & Potvin, C. Partitioning the effects of biodiversity and environmental heterogeneity for productivity and mortality in a tropical tree plantation. J. Ecol. 96, 903–913 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
45.Richards, J. A., Woodgate, P. W. & Skidmore, A. K. An explanation of enhanced radar backscattering from flooded forests. Int. J. Remote Sens. 8, 1093–1100 (1987).Article 

Google Scholar 
46.Morsdorf, F. et al. in Remote Sensing of Plant Biodiversity (eds Cavender-Bares, J. et al.) 83–104 (Springer International, 2020).47.Gratani, L. & Bombelli, A. Correlation between leaf age and other leaf traits in three Mediterranean maquis shrub species: Quercus ilex, Phillyrea latifolia and Cistus incanus. Environ. Exp. Bot. 43, 141–153 (2000).Article 

Google Scholar 
48.Kitayama, K. & Aiba, S. I. Ecosystem structure and productivity of tropical rain forests along altitudinal gradients with contrasting soil phosphorus pools on Mount Kinabalu, Borneo. J. Ecol. 90, 37–51 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
49.Nagler, P. L., Glenn, E. P. & Hinojosa-Huerta, O. Synthesis of ground and remote sensing data for monitoring ecosystem functions in the Colorado River Delta, Mexico. Remote Sens. Environ. 113, 1473–1485 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
50.Brassard, B. W., Chen, H. Y. H., Bergeron, Y. & Pare, D. Differences in fine root productivity between mixed- and single-species stands. Funct. Ecol. 25, 238–246 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
51.Reich, P. B., Walters, M. B. & Ellsworth, D. S. Leaf life-span in relation to leaf, plant, and stand characteristics among diverse ecosystems. Ecol. Monogr. 62, 365–392 (1992).Article 

Google Scholar 
52.Huston, M. A. & Wolverton, S. The global distribution of net primary production: resolving the paradox. Ecol. Monogr. 79, 343–377 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
53.Jones, M. O., Jones, L. A., Kimball, J. S. & McDonald, K. C. Satellite passive microwave remote sensing for monitoring global land surface phenology. Remote Sens. Environ. 115, 1102–1114 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
54.Garonna, I., de Jong, R. & Schaepman, M. E. Variability and evolution of global land surface phenology over the past three decades (1982–2012). Glob. Change Biol. 22, 1456–1468 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
55.Niklas, K. J. et al. ‘Diminishing returns’ in the scaling of functional leaf traits across and within species groups. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 104, 8891–8896 (2007).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
56.Walker, B., Kinzig, A. & Langridge, J. Plant attribute diversity, resilience, and ecosystem function: the nature and significance of dominant and minor species. Ecosystems 2, 95–113 (1999).Article 

Google Scholar 
57.Bai, Y. F. et al. Grazing alters ecosystem functioning and C:N:P stoichiometry of grasslands along a regional precipitation gradient. J. Appl. Ecol. 49, 1204–1215 (2012).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
58.Schmeller, D. S. et al. An operational definition of essential biodiversity variables. Biodivers. Conserv. 26, 2967–2972 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
59.Potter, C. et al. Recent history of large-scale ecosystem disturbances in North America derived from the AVHRR satellite record. Ecosystems 8, 808–824 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
60.Roy, D. P., Boschetti, L., Justice, C. O. & Ju, J. The collection 5 MODIS burned area product—global evaluation by comparison with the MODIS active fire product. Remote Sens. Environ. 112, 3690–3707 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
61.Russell-Smith, J., Ryan, P. G. & Durieu, R. A LANDSAT MSS-derived fire history of Kakadu National Park, monsoonal northern Australia, 1980–94: seasonal extent, frequency and patchiness. J. Appl. Ecol. 34, 748–766 (1997).Article 

Google Scholar 
62.Van der Werf, G. R. et al. Global fire emissions and the contribution of deforestation, savanna, forest, agricultural, and peat fires (1997–2009). Atmos. Chem. Phys. 10, 11707–11735 (2010).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
63.Nidumolu, U. B., De Bie, C., Van Keulen, H. & Skidmore, A. K. Enhancement of area-specific land-use objectives for land development. Land Degrad. Dev. 15, 513–525 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
64.Chen, F. et al. Fast automatic airport detection in remote sensing images using convolutional neural networks. Remote Sens. 10, 443 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
65.Weng, Q. H. Remote sensing of impervious surfaces in the urban areas: requirements, methods, and trends. Remote Sens. Environ. 117, 34–49 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
66.Scott, G. J., England, M. R., Starms, W. A., Marcum, R. A. & Davis, C. H. Training deep convolutional neural networks for land-cover classification of high-resolution imagery. IEEE Geosci. Remote Sens. Lett. 14, 549–553 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
67.Skidmore, A. K., Turner, B. J., Brinkhof, W. & Knowles, E. Performance of a neural network: mapping forests using GIS and remotely sensed data. Photogramm. Eng. Remote Sens. 63, 501–514 (1997).
Google Scholar 
68.Joshi, C. et al. Indirect remote sensing of a cryptic forest understorey invasive species. For. Ecol. Manag. 225, 245–256 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
69.Defries, R. S. et al. Mapping the land surface for global atmosphere–biosphere models—toward continuous distributions of vegetation’s functional properties. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 100, 20867–20882 (1995).Article 

Google Scholar 
70.Cunliffe, A. M., Brazier, R. E. & Anderson, K. Ultra-fine grain landscape-scale quantification of dryland vegetation structure with drone-acquired structure-from-motion photogrammetry. Remote Sens. Environ. 183, 129–143 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
71.Asner, G. P., Wessman, C. A. & Schimel, D. S. Heterogeneity of savanna canopy structure and function from imaging spectrometry and inverse modeling. Ecol. Appl. 8, 1022–1036 (1998).Article 

Google Scholar 
72.Peterseil, J. et al. Evaluating the ecological sustainability of Austrian agricultural landscapes—the SINUS approach. Land Use Policy 21, 307–320 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
73.Saura, S., Bodin, O. & Fortin, M. J. Stepping stones are crucial for species’ long-distance dispersal and range expansion through habitat networks. J. Appl. Ecol. 51, 171–182 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
74.De Jong, R., de Bruin, S., de Wit, A., Schaepman, M. E. & Dent, D. L. Analysis of monotonic greening and browning trends from global NDVI time-series. Remote Sens. Environ. 115, 692–702 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
75.Kissling, W. D. et al. Towards global data products of essential biodiversity variables on species traits. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2, 1531–1540 (2018).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
76.Baldeck, C. A. & Asner, G. P. Improving remote species identification through efficient training data collection. Remote Sens. 6, 2682–2698 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
77.Fassnacht, F. E. et al. Review of studies on tree species classification from remotely sensed data. Remote Sens. Environ. 186, 64–87 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
78.Lausch, A. et al. Linking earth observation and taxonomic, structural and functional biodiversity: local to ecosystem perspectives. Ecol. Indic. 70, 317–339 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
79.Shi, Y. F., Wang, T. J., Skidmore, A. K. & Heurich, M. Important LiDAR metrics for discriminating forest tree species in Central Europe. ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote Sens. 137, 163–174 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
80.Wilkes, P. et al. Using discrete-return airborne laser scanning to quantify number of canopy strata across diverse forest types. Methods Ecol. Evol. 7, 700–712 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
81.Hyyppa, J. et al. Review of methods of small-footprint airborne laser scanning for extracting forest inventory data in boreal forests. Int. J. Remote Sens. 29, 1339–1366 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
82.Transon, J., d’Andrimont, R., Maugnard, A. & Defourny, P. Survey of hyperspectral earth observation applications from space in the Sentinel-2 context. Remote Sens. 10, 157 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
83.Guanter, L. et al. The EnMAP spaceborne imaging spectroscopy mission for Earth observation. Remote Sens. 7, 8830–8857 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
84.Qi, W. L. & Dubayah, R. O. Combining Tandem-X InSAR and simulated GEDI LiDAR observations for forest structure mapping. Remote Sens. Environ. 187, 253–266 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
85.Ramoelo, A., Cho, M., Mathieu, R. & Skidmore, A. K. Potential of Sentinel-2 spectral configuration to assess rangeland quality. J. Appl. Remote Sens. 9, 094096 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
86.Madonsela, S. et al. Multi-phenology WorldView-2 imagery improves remote sensing of savannah tree species. Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinf. 58, 65–73 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
87.Bush, A. et al. Connecting Earth observation to high-throughput biodiversity data. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 1, 0176 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
88.Kays, R., Crofoot, M. C., Jetz, W. & Wikelski, M. Terrestrial animal tracking as an eye on life and planet. Science 348, aaa2478 (2015).PubMed 
Article 
CAS 
PubMed Central 

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

Google Scholar 
90.McManus, K. M. et al. Phylogenetic structure of foliar spectral traits in tropical forest canopies. Remote Sens. 8, 196 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
91.Urbano, F. et al. Wildlife tracking data management: a new vision. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 365, 2177–2185 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
92.Cubaynes, H. C., Fretwell, P. T., Bamford, C., Gerrish, L. & Jackson, J. A. Whales from space: four mysticete species described using new VHR satellite imagery. Mar. Mammal. Sci. 35, 466–491 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
93.Yang, Z. et al. Spotting East African mammals in open savannah from space. PLoS ONE 9, e115989 (2014).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
94.Neumann, W. et al. Opportunities for the application of advanced remotely-sensed data in ecological studies of terrestrial animal movement. Mov. Ecol. 3, 8 (2015).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
95.Weiss, J. R., Smythe, W. D. & Lu, W. W. Science Traceability. In Proc. IEEE Aerospace Conference 292–299 (IEEE, 2005).96.National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine Thriving on Our Changing Planet: A Decadal Strategy for Earth Observation from Space (National Academies Press, 2018).97.Verstraete, M. M., Diner, D. J. & Bezy, J. L. Planning for a spaceborne Earth observation mission: from user expectations to measurement requirements. Environ. Sci. Policy 54, 419–427 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
98.Skidmore, A. K. et al. Agree on biodiversity metrics to track from space. Nature 523, 403–405 (2015).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
99.Masek, J. G. et al. North American forest disturbance mapped from a decadal Landsat record. Remote Sens. Environ. 112, 2914–2926 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
100.O’Connor, B., Bojinski, S., Roosli, C. & Schaepman, M. E. Monitoring global changes in biodiversity and climate essential as ecological crisis intensifies. Ecol. Inform. 55, 101033 (2020).101.Hansen, M. C., Stehman, S. V. & Potapov, P. V. Quantification of global gross forest cover loss. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 107, 8650–8655 (2010).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
102.Vihervaara, P. et al. How essential biodiversity variables and remote sensing can help national biodiversity monitoring. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 10, 43–59 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
103.Walters, M. et al. Essential Biodiversity Variables UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/17/INF/7 (Convention on Biological Diversity, 2013).104.Asner, G. P. et al. Airborne laser-guided imaging spectroscopy to map forest trait diversity and guide conservation. Science 355, 385–389 (2017).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
105.Coll, M. et al. Ecological indicators to capture the effects of fishing on biodiversity and conservation status of marine ecosystems. Ecol. Indic. 60, 947–962 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
106.Díaz, S. et al. The global spectrum of plant form and function. Nature 529, 167–171 (2016).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
107.Gibert, J. P., Dell, A. I., DeLong, J. P. & Pawar, S. Scaling-up trait variation from individuals to ecosystems. Adv. Ecol. Res. 52, 1–17 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
108.Hagen, M. et al. Biodiversity, species interactions and ecological networks in a fragmented world. Adv. Ecol. Res. 46, 89–210 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
109.Lavorel, S. & Garnier, E. Predicting changes in community composition and ecosystem functioning from plant traits: revisiting the Holy Grail. Funct. Ecol. 16, 545–556 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
110.Thackeray, S. J. et al. Phenological sensitivity to climate across taxa and trophic levels. Nature 535, 241–245 (2016).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
111.Díaz, S. et al. Functional traits, the phylogeny of function, and ecosystem service vulnerability. Ecol. Evol. 3, 2958–2975 (2013).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

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

Google Scholar 
113.Schmeller, D. et al. Building capacity in biodiversity monitoring at the global scale. Biodivers. Conserv. 26, 2765–2790 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
114.Belward, A. S. & Skoien, J. O. Who launched what, when and why; trends in global land-cover observation capacity from civilian earth observation satellites. ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote Sens. 103, 115–128 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
115.Vogel, D. Private global business regulation. Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci. 11, 261–282 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
116.Tranquilli, S. et al. Lack of conservation effort rapidly increases African great ape extinction risk. Conserv. Lett. 5, 48–55 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
117.Buchanan, G. M. et al. Free satellite data key to conservation. Science 361, 139–140 (2018).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
118.Turner, W. et al. Free and open-access satellite data are key to biodiversity conservation. Biol. Conserv. 182, 173–176 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
119.Wulder, M. A. et al. Virtual constellations for global terrestrial monitoring. Remote Sens. Environ. 170, 62–76 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
120.Elith, J. et al. Novel methods improve prediction of species’ distributions from occurrence data. Ecography 29, 129–151 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
121.Czyz, E. A. et al. Intraspecific genetic variation of a Fagus sylvatica population in a temperate forest derived from airborne imaging spectroscopy time series. Ecol. Evol. 10, 7419–7430 (2020).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
122.Schweiger, A. K. et al. Plant spectral diversity integrates functional and phylogenetic components of biodiversity and predicts ecosystem function. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2, 976–982 (2018).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
123.Cavender-Bares, J. et al. Associations of leaf spectra with genetic and phylogenetic variation in oaks: prospects for remote detection of biodiversity. Remote Sens. 8, 221 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
124.Surface Biology and Geology (SBG) NASA Science https://science.nasa.gov/earth-science/decadal-sbg (2020). More

1.Doolittle, W. F. & Zhaxybayeva, O. BioScience 60, 102–112 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
2.Liautaud, K., van Nes, E. H., Barbier, M., Scheffer, M. & Loreau, M. Ecol. Lett. 22, 1243–1252 (2019).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
3.Morris, A., Meyer, K. & Bohannan, B. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 375, 20190244 (2020).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
4.De Monte, S. & Rainey, P. B. J. Biosci. 39, 237–248 (2014).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
5.Chang, C.-Y. et al. Nat. Ecol. Evol. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-021-01457-5 (2021).6.Goldford, J. E. et al. Science 361, 469–474 (2018).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
7.Machado, D. et al. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 5, 195–203 (2021).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
8.Ratzke, C., Barrere, J. & Gore, J. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 4, 376–383 (2020).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
9.Wright, E. S. & Vetsigian, K. H. Nat. Commun. 7, 11274 (2016).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
10.Szathmáry, E. & Demeter, L. J. Theor. Biol. 128, 463–486 (1987).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
11.Xie, L., Yuan, A. E. & Shou, W. PLoS Biol. 17, e3000295 (2019).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
12.van Vliet, S. & Doebeli, M. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 20591–20597 (2019).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
13.Doulcier, G., Lambert, A., De Monte, S. & Rainey, P. B. eLife 9, e53433 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
14.Black, A. J., Bourrat, P. & Rainey, P. B. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 4, 426–436 (2020).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
15.Williams, H. T. P. & Lenton, T. M. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 104, 8918–8923 (2007).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
16.Barbier, M., Arnoldi, J.-F., Bunin, G. & Loreau, M. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115, 2156–2161 (2018).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
17.Pearce, M. T., Agarwala, A. & Fisher, D. S. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117, 14572–14583 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
18.Roy, F., Barbier, M., Biroli, G. & Bunin, G. PLoS Comput. Biol. 16, e1007827 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar  More