Philippa Kaur

1.Weiner, J. Physiological limits to sustainable energy budgets in birds and mammals: ecological implications. Trends Ecol. Evol. 7, 384–388 (1992).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
2.Mcnab, B. K. Food habits, energetics, and the population biology of mammals. Am. Nat. 116, 106–124 (1980).Article 

Google Scholar 
3.Hovey, F. W. & Harestad, A. S. Estimating effects of snow on shrub availability for black-tailed deer in southwestern British Columbia. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 20, 308–313 (1992).
Google Scholar 
4.Post, E. & Stenseth, N. Climatic variability, plant phenology, and northern ungulates. Ecology 80, 1322–1339 (1999).Article 

Google Scholar 
5.Moen, A. N. Seasonal changes in heart rates, activity, metabolism, and forage intake of white-tailed deer. J. Wildl. Manag. 42, 715–738 (1978).Article 

Google Scholar 
6.Holand, Ø., Mysterud, A., Wannag, A. & Linnell, J. D. C. Roe deer in northern environments: physiology and behaviour. In The European Roe Deer: Biology of Success (eds Andersen, R. et al.) 117–137 (Scandinavian University Press, 1998).
Google Scholar 
7.Foromozov, A. N. Snow Cover as an Integral Factor of the Environment and Its Importance in the Ecology of Mammals and Birds (The University of Alberta, 1963).
Google Scholar 
8.Cagnacci, F. et al. Partial migration in roe deer: migratory and resident tactics are end points of a behavioural gradient determined by ecological factors. Oikos 120, 1790–1802 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
9.Dussault, C., Courtois, R., Ouellet, J.-P. & Girard, I. Space use of moose in relation to food availability. Can. J. Zool. 83, 1431–1437 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
10.Mysterud, A. & Sæther, B.-E. Climate change and implications for the future distribution and management of ungulates in Europe. In Ungulate Management in Europe: Problems and Practices (eds Putman, R. et al.) 349–375 (Cambridge University Press, 2011).
Google Scholar 
11.Parmesan, C. Ecological and evolutionary responses to recent climate change. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 37, 637–669 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
12.Scherrer, S. C., Wüthrich, C., Croci-Maspoli, M., Weingartner, R. & Appenzeller, C. Snow variability in the Swiss Alps 1864–2009. Int. J. Climatol. 33, 3162–3173 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
13.Milner, J. M., van Beest, F. M., Schmidt, K. T., Brook, R. K. & Storaas, T. To feed or not to feed? Evidence of the intended and unintended effects of feeding wild ungulates. J. Wildl. Manag. 78, 1322–1334 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
14.Ossi, F. et al. Plastic response by a small cervid to supplemental feeding in winter across a wide environmental gradient. Ecosphere 8, e01629 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
15.Putman, R. & Staines, B. W. Supplementary winter feeding of wild red deer Cervus elaphus in Europe and North America: justifications, feeding practice and effectiveness. Mamm. Rev. 34, 285–306 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
16.Cagnacci, F., Boitani, L., Powell, R. A. & Boyce, M. S. Animal ecology meets GPS-based radiotelemetry: a perfect storm of opportunities and challenges. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 365, 2157–2162 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
17.Peters, W. et al. Migration in geographic and ecological space by a large herbivore. Ecol. Monogr. 87, 297–320 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
18.Morellet, N. et al. Seasonality, weather and climate affect home range size in roe deer across a wide latitudinal gradient within Europe. J. Anim. Ecol. 82, 1326–1339 (2013).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
19.Johnson, D. H. The comparison of usage and availability measurements for evaluating resource preference. Ecology 61, 65–71 (1980).Article 

Google Scholar 
20.Ossi, F., Gaillard, J. M., Hebblewhite, M. & Cagnacci, F. Snow sinking depth and forest canopy drive winter resource selection more than supplemental feeding in an alpine population of roe deer. Eur. J. Wildl. Res. 61, 111–124 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
21.Mysterud, A. & Østbye, E. Bed-site selection by European roe deer (Capreolus capreolus) in southern Norway during winter. Can. J. Zool. 73, 924–932 (1995).Article 

Google Scholar 
22.Ramanzin, M., Sturaro, E. & Zanon, D. Seasonal migration and home range of roe deer (Capreolus capreolus) in the Italian eastern Alps. Can. J. Zool. 85, 280–289 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
23.Endrizzi, S., Gruber, S., Dall’Amico, M. & Rigon, R. GEOtop 2.0: simulating the combined energy and water balance at and below the land surface accounting for soil freezing, snow cover and terrain effects. Geosci. Model. Dev. 7, 2831–2857 (2014).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
24.Cohen, J. A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 20, 37–46 (1960).Article 

Google Scholar 
25.Thomson, A. M. et al. RCP 4.5: a pathway for stabilization of radiative forcing by 2100. Clim. Change 109, 77–94 (2011).CAS 
Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
26.Riahi, K. et al. RCP 8.5—a scenario of comparatively high greenhouse gas emissions. Clim. Change 109, 33–57 (2011).CAS 
Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
27.Thomas, C. D. Climate, climate change and range boundaries. Divers. Distrib. 16, 488–495 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
28.Penteriani, V. et al. Evolutionary and ecological traps for brown bears Ursus arctos in human-modified landscapes. Mamm. Rev. 48, 180–193 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
29.Sorensen, A., van Beest, F. M. & Brook, R. K. Impacts of wildlife baiting and supplemental feeding on infectious disease transmission risk: a synthesis of knowledge. Prev. Vet. Med. 113, 356–363 (2014).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
30.Mysterud, A., Viljugrein, H., Solberg, E. J. & Rolandsen, C. M. Legal regulation of supplementary cervid feeding facing chronic wasting disease. J. Wildl. Manag. 83, 1667–1675 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
31.Ceacero, F. et al. Benefits for dominant red deer hinds under a competitive feeding system: food access behavior, diet and nutrient selection. PLoS ONE 7, e32780 (2012).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
ADS 

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

Google Scholar 
33.Loe, L. E. et al. Behavioral buffering of extreme weather events in a high-Arctic herbivore. Ecosphere 7, e01374 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
34.Sih, A., Ferrari, M. C. O. & Harris, D. J. Evolution and behavioural responses to human-induced rapid environmental change. Evol. Appl. 4, 367–387 (2011).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
35.Radchuk, V. et al. Adaptive responses of animals to climate change are most likely insufficient. Nat. Commun. 10, 3109 (2019).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
36.Mysterud, A. Still walking on the wild side? Management actions as steps towards ‘semi-domestication’ of hunted ungulates. J. Appl. Ecol. 47, 920–925 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
37.Felton, A. M. et al. Interactions between ungulates, forests, and supplementary feeding: the role of nutritional balancing in determining outcomes. Mamm. Res. 62, 1–7 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
38.Ricci, S. et al. Impact of supplemental winter feeding on ruminal microbiota of roe deer Capreolus capreolus. Wildl. Biol. 2019, wlb.00572 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
39.Lone, K. et al. Living and dying in a multi-predator landscape of fear: roe deer are squeezed by contrasting pattern of predation risk imposed by lynx and humans. Oikos 123, 641–651 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
40.Chapron, G. et al. Recovery of large carnivores in Europe’s modern human-dominated landscapes. Science (80-) 346, 1517–1519 (2014).CAS 
Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
41.Milanesi, P., Breiner, F. T., Puopolo, F. & Holderegger, R. European human-dominated landscapes provide ample space for the recolonization of large carnivore populations under future land change scenarios. Ecography (Cop.) 40, 1359–1368 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
42.Pascual-Rico, R. et al. Is diversionary feeding a useful tool to avoid human-ungulate conflicts? A case study with the aoudad. Eur. J. Wildl. Res. 64, 1–7 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
43.van Beest, F. M., Loe, L. E., Mysterud, A. & Milner, J. M. Comparative space use and habitat selection of moose around feeding stations. J. Wildl. Manag. 74, 219–227 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
44.Jerina, K. Roads and supplemental feeding affect home-range size of Slovenian red deer more than natural factors. J. Mamm. 93, 1139–1148 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
45.Ranc, N. et al. Preference and familiarity mediate spatial responses of a large herbivore to experimental manipulation of resource availability. Scientific Reports 10, 11946 (2020). 46.Brown, R. D. & Robinson, D. A. Northern Hemisphere spring snow cover variability and change over 1922–2010 including an assessment of uncertainty. Cryosphere 5, 219–229 (2011).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
47.Schloss, C. A., Nuñez, T. A. & Lawler, J. J. Dispersal will limit ability of mammals to track climate change in the Western Hemisphere. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 109, 8606–8611 (2012).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
48.Gurarie, E. et al. A framework for modelling range shifts and migrations: asking when, whither, whether and will it return. J. Anim. Ecol. 86, 943–959 (2017).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
49.Rivrud, I. M. et al. Leave before it’s too late: anthropogenic and environmental triggers of autumn migration in a hunted ungulate population. Ecology 97, 1058–1065 (2016).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
50.Courtois, R., Dussault, C., Potvin, F. & Daigle, G. Habitat selection by moose (Alces alces) in clear-cut landscapes. Alces 38, 177–192 (2002).
Google Scholar 
51.Gilbert, S. L., Hundertmark, K. J., Person, D. K., Lindberg, M. S. & Boyce, M. S. Behavioral plasticity in a variable environment: snow depth and habitat interactions drive deer movement in winter. J. Mamm. 98, 246–259 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
52.Chevin, L. M., Lande, R. & Mace, G. M. Adaptation, plasticity, and extinction in a changing environment: towards a predictive theory. PLoS Biol. 8, e1000357 (2010).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
53.Bauer, S. & Hoye, B. J. Migratory animals couple biodiversity and ecosystem functioning worldwide. Science (80-) 344, 1242552 (2014).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
54.Mason, T. H. E., Stephens, P. A., Apollonio, M. & Willis, S. G. Predicting potential responses to future climate in an alpine ungulate: Interspecific interactions exceed climate effects. Glob. Change Biol. 20, 3872–3882 (2014).Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
55.Carnevali, L., Pedrotti, L., Riga, F. & Toso, S. Banca dati ungulati: Status, distribuzione, consistenza, gestione e prelievo venatorio delle popolazioni di ungulati in Italia. Rapporto 2001–2005 Vol. 117 (Biologia e Conservazione della Fauna, 2009).
Google Scholar 
56.Provincia Autonoma di Trento. Analisi delle consistenze e dei prelievi di ungulati, tetraonidi e coturnice. Stagione Venatoria 2018 (Provincia Autonoma di Trento, 2018).
Google Scholar 
57.Rockel, B., Will, A. & Hense, A. The regional climate model COSMO-CLM (CCLM). Meteorol. Z. 17, 347–348 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
58.Boyce, M. S. & McDonald, L. L. Relating populations to habitats using resource selection functions. Trends Ecol. Evol. 14, 268–272 (1999).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
59.Boyce, M. S., Vernier, P. R., Nielsen, S. E. & Schmiegelow, F. K. A. Evaluating resource selection functions. Ecol. Modell. 157, 281–300 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
60.Benoit, T. & Achraf, E. suncalc: compute sun position, sunlight phases, moon position and lunar phase. R package version 0.5.0. https://cran.r-project.org/package=suncalc (2019).61.DeCesare, N. J. et al. Transcending scale dependece in identifying habitat with resource selection functions. Ecol. Appl. 22, 1068–1083 (2012).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
62.Kendall, M. A new measure of rank correlation. Biometrika 30, 81–89 (1938).MATH 
Article 

Google Scholar 
63.Cohen, J. Weighted kappa: nominal scale agreement with provision for scaled disagreement or partial credit. Psychol. Bull. 70, 213–220 (1968).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
64.Gamer, M., Lemon, J., Fellows, I. & Singh, P. irr: various coefficients of interrater reliability and agreement. R package version 0.84.1. https://cran.r-project.org/package=irr (2019).65.Lele, S. R., Keim, J. L. & Solymos, P. ResourceSelection: resource selection (probability) functions for use-availability data. R package version 0.3-5. https://cran.r-project.org/package=ResourceSelection (2019).66.Bivand, R., Keitt, T. & Rowlingson, B. rgdal: bindings for the ‘Geospatial’ Data Abstraction Library. R package version 1.4-8. https://cran.r-project.org/package=rgdal (2019).67.McLeod, A. I. Kendall: Kendall rank correlation and Mann-Kendall trend test. R package version 2.2. https://cran.r-project.org/package=Kendall (2011).68.Bright Ross, J. G., Peters, W., Ossi, F., Moorcroft P. R., Cordano, E., Eccel, E., Bianchini, F., Ramanzin, M., and Cagnacci, F. Datasets for “Climate change and anthropogenic food manipulation interact in shifting the distribution of a large herbivore at its altitudinal range limit.” https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4637674 (2021). More

1.Alexandra-Maria, K. et al. Importance of pollinators in changing landscapes for world crops. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 274, 303–313 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
2.Winfree, R., Williams, N. M., Gaines, H., Ascher, J. S. & Kremen, C. Wild bee pollinators provide the majority of crop visitation across land-use gradients in New Jersey and Pennsylvania, USA. J. Appl. Ecol. 45, 793–802 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
3.Brosi, B. J. & Briggs, H. M. Single pollinator species losses reduce floral fidelity and plant reproductive function. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 110, 13044–13048 (2013).CAS 
Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
4.Potts, S. G. et al. Global pollinator declines: trends, impacts and drivers. Trends Ecol. Evol. 25, 345–353 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
5.Cameron, S. A. et al. Patterns of widespread decline in North American bumble bees. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 108, 662–667 (2011).CAS 
Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
6.Koh, I. et al. Modeling the status, trends, and impacts of wild bee abundance in the United States. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 113, 140–145 (2016).CAS 
Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
7.Cameron, S. A. & Sadd, B. M. Global trends in bumble bee health. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 65, 209–232 (2020).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
8.Murray, T. E., Kuhlmann, M. & Potts, S. G. Conservation ecology of bees: populations, species and communities. Apidologie 40, 211–236 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
9.Michener, C. D. The Bees of the World (Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, 2007).
Google Scholar 
10.Milam, J. et al. Validating morphometrics with DNA barcoding to reliably separate three cryptic species of bombus cresson (Hymenoptera: Apidae). Insects 11, 669 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
11.Williams, P. H. et al. Widespread polytypic species or complexes of local species? Revising bumblebees of the subgenus Melanobombus world-wide (Hymenoptera, Apidae, Bombus). Eur. J. Taxon. 719, 1–120 (2020).
Google Scholar 
12.Drew, L. W. Are we losing the science of taxonomy? As need grows, numbers and training are failing to keep up. Bioscience 61, 942–946 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
13.Portman, Z. M., Bruninga-Socolar, B. & Cariveau, D. P. The state of bee monitoring in the United States: A call to refocus away from bowl traps and towards more effective methods. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 113, 337–342 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
14.Valan, M., Makonyi, K., Maki, A., Vondráček, D. & Ronquist, F. Automated taxonomic identification of insects with expert-level accuracy using effective feature transfer from convolutional networks. Syst. Biol. 68, 876–895 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
15.Gratton, C. & Zuckerberg, B. Citizen science data for mapping bumble bee populations, in Novel Quantitative Methods in Pollinator Ecology and Management (2019).16.MacPhail, V. J., Gibson, S. D., Hatfield, R. & Colla, S. R. Using Bumble Bee Watch to investigate the accuracy and perception of bumble bee (Bombus spp.) identification by community scientists. PeerJ 8, e9412 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
17.Weeks, P. J. D., Gauld, I. D., Gaston, K. J. & O’Neill, M. A. Automating the identification of insects: a new solution to an old problem. Bull. Entomol. Res. 87, 203–211 (1997).Article 

Google Scholar 
18.Schröder, S. et al. The new key to bees: Automated identification by image analysis of wings. in The Conservation Link Between Agriculture and Nature (eds. Kevan, P. & Imperatriz-Fonseca, V.) 209–216 (Ministry of Environment, 2002).19.MacLeod, N., Benfield, M. & Culverhouse, P. Time to automate identification. Nature 467, 154–155 (2010).CAS 
Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
20.Fuentes, A., Yoon, S., Kim, S. C. & Park, D. S. A robust deep-learning-based detector for real-time tomato plant diseases and pests recognition. Sensors 17, 2022 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
21.Motta, D. et al. Application of convolutional neural networks for classification of adult mosquitoes in the field. PLoS ONE 14, e0210829 (2019).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
22.Bojarski, M. et al. End to end learning for self-driving cars. arXxiv:1604.07316 (2016).23.Anthimopoulos, M., Christodoulidis, S., Ebner, L., Christe, A. & Mougiakakou, S. Lung pattern classification for interstitial lung diseases using a deep convolutional neural network. IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging 35, 1207–1216 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
24.Liu, Z., Gao, J., Yang, G., Zhang, H. & He, Y. Localization and classification of paddy field pests using a saliency map and deep convolutional neural network. Sci. Rep. 6, 20410 (2016).CAS 
Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
25.Martineau, M., Raveaux, R., Chatelain, C., Conte, D. & Venturini, G. Effective training of convolutional neural networks for insect image recognition. In Advanced Concepts for Intelligent Vision Systems, pp 426–437 (eds Blanc-Talon, J. et al.) (Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2018).
Google Scholar 
26.Marques, A. C. R. et al. Ant genera identification using an ensemble of convolutional neural networks. PLoS ONE 13, e0192011 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
27.Williams, P. H., Thorp, R. W., Richardson, L. L. & Colla, S. R. Bumble Bees of North America: An Identification Guide (Princeton University Press, Princeton, 2014).
Google Scholar 
28.He, K., Zhang, X., Ren, S. & Sun, J. Deep residual learning for image recognition. 2016 IEEE Conf. Comput. Vis. Pattern Recognit. CVPR 770–778 (2015).29.Zagoruyko, S. & Komodakis, N. Wide residual networks. arXxiv:1605.07146 (2017).30.Szegedy, C., Vanhoucke, V., Ioffe, S., Shlens, J. & Wojna, Z. Rethinking the inception architecture for computer vision. arXxiv:1512.00567 (2015).31.Tan, M. et al. MnasNet: Platform-aware neural architecture search for mobile. arXxiv:1807.11626 (2019).32.Deng, J. et al. ImageNet: A large-scale hierarchical image database. in 2009 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition 248–255 (2009).33.Hernández-García, A. & König, P. Further advantages of data augmentation on convolutional neural networks. arXxiv:1906.11052 11139, 95–103 (2018).34.Fard, F. S., Hollensen, P., Mcilory, S. & Trappenberg, T. Impact of biased mislabeling on learning with deep networks. in 2017 International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN) 2652–2657 (2017).35.Clare, J. D. J., Townsend, P. A. & Zuckerberg, B. Generalized model-based solutions to false positive error in species detection/non-detection data. Ecology 102, e03241 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
36.Clare, J. D. J. et al. Making inference with messy (citizen science) data: when are data accurate enough and how can they be improved?. Ecol. Appl. 29, e01849 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
37.Tian, Z. et al. Discriminative CNN via metric learning for hyperspectral classification. in IGARSS 2019 – 2019 IEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium 580–583 (2019).38.Nazki, H., Yoon, S., Fuentes, A. & Park, D. S. Unsupervised image translation using adversarial networks for improved plant disease recognition. Comput. Electron. Agric. 168, 105117 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
39.Wäldchen, J. & Mäder, P. Machine learning for image based species identification. Methods Ecol. Evol. 9, 2216–2225 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
40.Woodard, S. H. et al. Towards a U.S. national program for monitoring native bees. Biol. Conserv. 252, 108821 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
41.Wagner, D. L. Insect declines in the anthropocene. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 65, 457–480 (2020).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
42.Montgomery, G. A. et al. Is the insect apocalypse upon us? How to find out. Biol. Conserv. 241, 108327 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
43.Høye, T. T., Mann, H. M. R. & Bjerge, K. Camera-based monitoring of insects on green roofs. DCE – Natl. Cent. Environ. Energy 18 (2020).44.Ärje, J. et al. Automatic image-based identification and biomass estimation of invertebrates. Methods Ecol. Evol. 11, 922–931 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
45.Norouzzadeh, M. S. et al. Automatically identifying, counting, and describing wild animals in camera-trap images with deep learning. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 115, E5716–E5725 (2018).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
46.Hallmann, C. A. et al. More than 75 percent decline over 27 years in total flying insect biomass in protected areas. PLoS ONE 12, e0185809 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
47.Ghisbain, G. et al. Substantial genetic divergence and lack of recent gene flow support cryptic speciation in a colour polymorphic bumble bee (Bombus bifarius) species complex. Syst. Ecol. 45, 635–652 (2020).
Google Scholar  More

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain
the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in
Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles
and JavaScript. More

Experiment 1: Sponge fragmentsEvidence of bleaching first occurred 3 days after the treatment and was only evident in the group with fragments of T. hoshinota. No bleaching was detected in the other 2 groups with the black cloth (to block light) and white cloth (control) (Table 1). Chi-square tests confirmed that the occurrence of bleaching depended on the treatments (p  More

1.Gross, V. et al. Miniaturization of tardigrades (water bears): Morphological and genomic perspectives. Arthr. Struct. Dev. 48, 12–19 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
2.Møbjerg, N. et al. Survival in extreme environments – on the current knowledge of adaptations in tardigrades. Acta Physiol. 202, 409–420 (2011).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
3.Giribet, G. & Edgecombe, G. D. Current understanding of Ecdysozoa and its internal phylogenetic relationships. Integr. Comp. Biol. 57, 455–466 (2017).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
4.Campbell, L. I. et al. MicroRNAs and phylogenomics resolve the relationships of Tardigrada and suggest that velvet worms are the sister group of Arthropoda. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108, 15920–15924 (2011).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
ADS 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
5.Jørgensen, A., Møbjerg, N. & Kristensen, R. M. Phylogeny and evolution of the Echiniscidae (Echiniscoidea, Tardigrada) – an investigation of the congruence between molecules and morphology. J. Zool. Syst. Evol. Res. 49(Suppl. 1), 6–16 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
6.Bertolani, R. et al. Phylogeny of Eutardigrada: new molecular data and their morphological support lead to the identification of new evolutionary lineages. Mol. Phyl. Evol. 76, 110–126 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
7.Fujimoto, S., Jørgensen, A. & Hansen, J. G. A. molecular approach to arthrotardigrade phylogeny (Heterotardigrada, Tardigrada). Zool. Scr. 46, 496–505 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
8.Gąsiorek, P., Stec, D., Morek, W. & Michalczyk, Ł. Deceptive conservatism of claws: distinct phyletic lineages concealed within Isohypsibioidea (Eutardigrada) revealed by molecular and morphological evidence. Contrib. Zool. 88, 78–132 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
9.Hortal, J. et al. Seven shortfalls that beset large-scale knowledge of biodiversity. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 46, 523–549 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
10.Bartels, P. J., Apodaca, J. J., Mora, C. & Nelson, D. R. A global biodiversity estimate of a poorly known taxon: phylum Tardigrada. Zool. J. Linn. Soc. 178, 730–736 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
11.McInnes, S. J. Zoogeographic distribution of terrestrial/freshwater tardigrades from current literature. J. Nat. Hist. 28, 257–352 (1994).Article 

Google Scholar 
12.Morek, W., Stec, D., Gąsiorek, P., Surmacz, B. & Michalczyk, Ł. Milnesium tardigradum Doyère, 1840: The first integrative study of interpopulation variability in a tardigrade species. J. Zool. Syst. Evol. Res. 57, 1–23 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
13.Gąsiorek, P., Blagden, B. & Michalczyk, Ł. Towards a better understanding of echiniscid intraspecific variability: A redescription of Nebularmis reticulatus (Murray, 1905) (Heterotardigrada: Echiniscoidea). Zool. Anz. 283, 242–255 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
14.Gąsiorek, P. et al. Echiniscus virginicus complex: the first case of pseudocryptic allopatry and pantropical distribution in tardigrades. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 128, 789–805 (2019).
Google Scholar 
15.Cesari, M., McInnes, S. J., Bertolani, R., Rebecchi, L. & Guidetti, R. Genetic diversity and biogeography of the south polar water bear Acutuncus antarcticus (Eutardigrada : Hypsibiidae) – evidence that it is a truly pan-Antarctic species. Invertebr. Syst. 30, 635–649 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
16.Guidetti, R., McInnes, S. J., Cesari, M., Rebecchi, L. & Rota-Stabelli, O. Evolutionary scenarios for the origin of an Antarctic tardigrade species based on molecular clock analyses and biogeographic data. Contrib. Zool. 86, 97–110 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
17.Stec, D., Krzywański, Ł, Zawierucha, K. & Michalczyk, Ł. Untangling systematics of the Paramacrobiotus areolatus species complex by an integrative redescription of the nominal species for the group, with multilocus phylogeny and species delineation in the genus Paramacrobiotus. Zool. J. Linn. Soc. 188, 694–716 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
18.Thulin, G. Beiträge zur Kenntnis der Tardigradenfauna Schwedens. Ark. Zool. 7, 1–60 (1911).
Google Scholar 
19.Kristensen, R. M. Generic revision of the Echiniscidae (Heterotardigrada), with a discussion of the origin of the family. In Biology of Tardigrada (ed. Bertolani, R.) 261–335 (U.Z.I. Modena, 1987).
Google Scholar 
20.Vecchi, M. et al. Integrative systematic studies on tardigrades from Antarctica identify new genera and new species within Macrobiotoidea and Echiniscoidea. Invertebr. Syst. 30, 303–322 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
21.Cesari, M. et al. An integrated study of the biodiversity within the Pseudechiniscus suillus–facettalis group (Heterotardigrada: Echiniscidae). Zool. J. Linn. Soc. 188, 717–732 (2020).
Google Scholar 
22.Tumanov, D. V. Analysis of non-morphometric morphological characters used in the taxonomy of the genus Pseudechiniscus (Tardigrada: Echiniscidae). Zool. J. Linn. Soc. 188, 753–775 (2020).
Google Scholar 
23.Grobys, D. et al. High diversity in the Pseudechiniscus suillus–facettalis complex (Heterotardigrada: Echiniscidae) with remarks on the morphology of the genus Pseudechiniscus. Zool. J. Linn. Soc. 188, 733–752 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
24.Roszkowska, M. et al. Integrative description of five Pseudechiniscus species (Heterotardigrada: Echiniscidae: the suillus-facettalis complex). Zootaxa 4763, 451–484 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
25.Gąsiorek, P. et al. New Asian and Nearctic Hypechiniscus species (Heterotardigrada: Echiniscidae) signalise a pseudocryptic horn of plenty. Zool. J. Linn. Soc. (in press).26.Fontoura, P. & Morais, P. Assessment of traditional and geometric morphometrics for discriminating cryptic species of the Pseudechiniscus suillus complex (Tardigrada, Echiniscidae). J. Zool. Syst. Evol. Res. 49(Suppl. 1), 26–33 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
27.Yu, Y., Harris, A. J. & He, X. S-DIVA (Statistical Dispersal-Vicariance Analysis): a tool for inferring biogeographic histories. Mol. Phyl. Evol. 56, 848–850 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
28.Matzke, N. J. Probabilistic historical biogeography: new models for founder- event speciation, imperfect detection, and fossils allow improved accuracy and model-testing. Front. Biogeogr. 5, 242–248 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
29.Pagel, M., Meade, A. & Barker, D. Bayesian estimation of ancestral character states on phylogenies. Syst. Biol. 53, 673–684 (2004).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
30.Phillips, S. J., Anderson, R. P. & Schapire, R. E. Maximum entropy modelling of species geographic distributions. Ecol. Model. 190, 231–259 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
31.Rocha, A., Doma, I., Gonzalez-Reyes, A. & Lisi, O. Two new tardigrade species (Echiniscidae, Doryphoribiidae) from Salta province (Argentina). Zootaxa 4878, 267–286 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
32.Ehrenberg, C. G. Diagnoses novarum formarum. Verhandl. König. Preuss. Akad. Wiss Berlin 8, 526–533 (1853).
Google Scholar 
33.Mihelčič, F. Zwei neue Tardigradenarten aus Spanien. Zool. Anz. 155, 309–311 (1955).
Google Scholar 
34.Mihelčič, F. Beitrag zur Systematik de Tardigraden . Arch. Zool. Ital. 36, 57–103 (1951).
Google Scholar 
35.Iharos, A. Zwei neue Tardigraden-Arten. Zool. Anz. 115, 218–220 (1936).
Google Scholar 
36.Murray, J. Some South African Tardigrada. J. R. Microsc. Soc. 12, 515–524 (1907).Article 

Google Scholar 
37.Yang, T. Three new species and one new record of the Tardigrada from China. Acta Hydrobiol. Sin. 26, 504–507 (2002).
Google Scholar 
38.Mihelčič, F. Beiträge zur Kenntnis der Tardigrada Jugoslawiens. Zool. Anz. 121, 95–96 (1938).
Google Scholar 
39.Bartoš, E. Eine neue Tardigradenart aus der Tschechoslowakei. Zool. Anz. 106, 175–176 (1934).
Google Scholar 
40.Richters, F. Beitrag zur Kenntnis der Moosfauna Australiens und der Inseln des Pazifischen Ozeans. Zool. Jahrb. Abt. Syst. Ökol. Geogr. Tiere 26, 196–213 (1908).
Google Scholar 
41.Vončina, K., Kristensen, R. M. & Gąsiorek, P. Pseudechiniscus in Japan: re-description of Pseudechiniscus asper Abe et al., 1998 and description of Pseudechiniscus shintai sp. nov. Zoosyst. Evol. 96, 527–536 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
42.Wang, L. Tardigrades from the Yunnan-Guizhou Plateau (China) with description of two new species in the genera Mixibius (Eutardigrada: Hypsibiidae) and Pseudechiniscus (Heterotardigrada: Echiniscidae). J. Nat. Hist. 43, 2553–2570 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
43.Hulings, N. C. & Gray, J. S. A manual for the study of meiofauna. Smithson. Contrib. Zool. 78, 1–84 (1971).
Google Scholar 
44.Gąsiorek, P. & Michalczyk, Ł. Revised Cornechiniscus (Heterotardigrada) and new phylogenetic analyses negate echiniscid subfamilies and tribes. R. Soc. Open Sci. 7, 200581 (2020).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
45.Dastych, H. Notes on the revision of the genus Mopsechiniscus (Tardigrada). Zool. Anz. 240, 299–308 (2001).Article 

Google Scholar 
46.Rebecchi, L., Altiero, T., Eibye-Jacobsen, J., Bertolani, R. & Kristensen, R. M. A new discovery of Novechiniscus armadilloides (Schuster, 1975) (Tardigrada, Echiniscidae) from Utah, USA with considerations on non-marine Heterotardigrada phylogeny and biogeography. Org. Divers. Evol. 8, 58–65 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
47.Binda, M. G. & Kristensen, R. M. Notes on the genus Oreella (Oreellidae) and the systematic position of Carphania fluviatilis Binda, 1978 (Carphaniidae fam. nov., Heterotardigrada). Animalia 13, 9–20 (1986).
Google Scholar 
48.Binda, M. G. Risistemazione di alcuni Tardigradi con l’instituzione di un nuovo genere di Oreellidae e della nuova famiglia Archechiniscidae. Animalia 5, 307–314 (1978).
Google Scholar 
49.Kristensen, R. M. & Hallas, T. E. The tidal genus Echiniscoides and its variability, with erection of Echiniscoididae fam. n. (Tardigrada). Zool. Scr. 9, 113–127 (1980).Article 

Google Scholar 
50.Møbjerg, N., Kristensen, R. M. & Jørgensen, A. Data from new taxa infer Isoechiniscoides gen. nov. and increase the phylogenetic and evolutionary understanding of echiniscoidid tardigrades (Echiniscoidea: Tardigrada). Zool. J. Linn. Soc. 178, 804–818 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
51.Møbjerg, N., Jørgensen, A. & Kristensen, R. M. Ongoing revision of Echiniscoididae (Heterotardigrada: Echiniscoidea), with the description of a new interstitial species and genus with unique anal structures. Zool. J. Linn. Soc. 188, 663–680 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
52.Gąsiorek, P., Suzuki, A. C., Kristensen, R. M., Lachowska-Cierlik, D. & Michalczyk, Ł. Untangling the Echiniscus Gordian knot: Stellariscus gen. nov. (Heterotardigrada: Echiniscidae) from Far East Asia. Invertebr. Syst. 32, 1234–1247 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
53.Dastych, H. Echiniscus rackae sp. n., a new species of Tardigrada from the Himalayas. Entomol. Mitt. Zool. Mus. Hamburg 8, 246–250 (1986).
Google Scholar 
54.McInnes, S. J. Tardigrades from Signy Island, South Orkney Islands, with particular reference to freshwater species. J. Nat. Hist. 29, 1419–1445 (1995).Article 

Google Scholar 
55.Dastych, H. Two new species of Tardigrada from the Canadian Subarctic with some notes on sexual dimorphism in the family Echiniscidae. Entomol. Mitt. Zool. Mus. Hamburg 8, 319–334 (1987).
Google Scholar 
56.Pilato, G., Binda, M. G. & Lisi, O. Remarks on some Echiniscidae (Heterotardigrada) from New Zealand with the description of two new species. Zootaxa 1027, 27–45 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
57.Pilato, G., Binda, M. G., Napolitano, A. & Moncada, E. Notes on South American tardigrades with the description of two new species: Pseudechiniscus spinerectus and Macrobiotus danielae. Trop. Zool. 14, 223–231 (2001).Article 

Google Scholar 
58.Fontoura, P., Pilato, G. & Lisi, O. First record of Tardigrada from São Tomé (Gulf of Guinea, Western Equatorial Africa) and description of Pseudechiniscus santomensis sp. nov. (Heterotardigrada: Echiniscidae). Zootaxa 2564, 31–42 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
59.Bartoš, E. Die Tardigraden der Chinesischen und Javanischen Moosproben. Acta Soc. Zool. Bohem. 27, 108–114 (1963).
Google Scholar 
60.Beijerinck, M.W. De infusies en de ontdekking der backteriën. Jaarboek van de Koninklijke Akademie v. Wetenschappen. Amsterdam: Müller (1913).61.Baas-Becking, L. G. M. Geobiologie of inleiding tot de milieukunde (W.P. Van Stockum & Zoon, 1934).
Google Scholar 
62.Wallace, A. R. The geographical distribution of animals: with a study of the relations of living and extinct faunas as elucidating the past changes of the Earth’s surface (Macmillan and Company, 1876).
Google Scholar 
63.Niedbała, W. The ptyctimous mites fauna of the Oriental and Australian regions and their centres of origin (Acari: Oribatida). Genus Suppl. 10, 1–493 (2000).
Google Scholar 
64.Niedbała, W. Ptyctimous mites (Acari: Oribatida) of South Africa. Ann. Zool. 56(Suppl. 1), 1–97 (2006).
Google Scholar 
65.Janion-Scheepers, C., Deharveng, L., Bedos, A. & Chown, S. Updated list of Collembola species currently recorded from South Africa. ZooKeys 503, 55–88 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
66.Kisielewski, J. Inland-water Gastrotricha from Brazil. Ann. Zool. 43(Suppl. 2), 1–168 (1991).
Google Scholar 
67.Tuxen, S. L. Ecology and zoogeography of the Brazilian Protura (Insecta). Stud. Neotrop. Fauna Environ. 12, 225–247 (1977).Article 

Google Scholar 
68.Greenslade, P. Why are there so many exotic springtails in Australia? A review. Soil Org. 90, 141–156 (2018).
Google Scholar 
69.Smit, H. Australian water mites of the subfamily Notoaturinae Besch (Acari: Hydrachnidia: Aturidae), with the description of 24 new species. Int. J. Acarol. 36, 101–146 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
70.Moir, M. L., Brennan, K. E. C. & Harvey, M. S. Diversity, endemism and species turnover of millipedes within the south-western Australian global biodiversity hotspot. J. Biogeogr. 36, 1958–1971 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
71.Harvey, M. S., Abrams, K. M., Beavis, A. S., Hillyer, M. J. & Huey, J. A. Pseudoscorpions of the family Feaellidae (Pseudoscorpiones: Feaelloidea) from the Pilbara region of Western Australia show extreme short-range endemism. Invertebr. Syst. 30, 491–508 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
72.Claxton, S.K. The taxonomy and distribution of Australian terrestrial tardigrades. PhD thesis, Macquarie University: Sydney (2004).73.Simpson, G. G. Tempo and mode in evolution (Columbia University Press, 1944).
Google Scholar 
74.Dastych, H. The Tardigrada of Poland. Monogr. Faun. Pol. 16, 1–255 (1988).
Google Scholar 
75.Peters, M. K. et al. Predictors of elevational biodiversity gradients change from single taxa to the multi-taxa community level. Nat. Commun. 7, 13736 (2016).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
76.Petersen, B. The tardigrade fauna of Greenland. Medd. Grønl. 150, 1–94 (1951).
Google Scholar 
77.de Bruyn, M. et al. Borneo and Indochina are major evolutionary hotspots for Southeast Asian biodiversity. Syst. Biol. 63, 879–901 (2014).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
78.Ugland, K. I., Gray, J. S. & Ellingsen, K. E. The species–accumulation curve and estimation of species richness. J. Anim. Ecol. 72, 888–897 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
79.Casquet, J. T., Thebaud, C. & Gillespie, R. G. Chelex without boiling, a rapid and easy technique to obtain stable amplifiable DNA from small amounts of ethanol-stored spiders. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 12, 136–141 (2012).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
80.Stec, D., Kristensen, R.M. & Michalczyk, Ł. An integrative description of Minibiotus ioculator sp. nov. from the Republic of South Africa with notes on Minibiotus pentannulatus Londoño et al., 2017 (Tardigrada: Macrobiotidae). Zool. Anz. 286, 117–134 (2020).81.Hall, T. A. BioEdit: a user-friendly biological sequence alignment editor and analysis program for Windows 95/98/NT. Nucleic Acids Symp. Ser. 41, 95–98 (1999).CAS 

Google Scholar 
82.Nguyen, L.-T., Schmidt, H. A., von Haeseler, A. & Minh, B. Q. IQ-TREE: A fast and effective stochastic algorithm for estimating maximum likelihood phylogenies. Mol. Biol. Evol. 32, 268–274 (2015).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
83.Hoang, D. T., Chernomor, O., von Haeseler, A., Minh, B. Q. & Vinh, L. S. UFBoot2: Improving the ultrafast bootstrap approximation. Mol. Biol. Evol. 35, 518–522 (2018).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
84.Kalyaanamoorthy, S., Minh, B. Q., Wong, T. K. F., von Haeseler, A. & Jermiin, L. S. ModelFinder: Fast model selection for accurate phylogenetic estimates. Nat. Meth. 14, 587–589 (2017).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
85.Zhang, J., Kapli, P., Pavlidis, P. & Stamatakis, A. A general species delimitation method with applications to phylogenetic placements. Bioinformatics 29, 2869–2876 (2013).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
86.Katoh, K., Misawa, K., Kuma, K. & Miyata, T. MAFFT: a novel method for rapid multiple sequence alignment based on fast Fourier transform. Nucleic Acids Res. 30, 3059–3066 (2002).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
87.Katoh, K. & Toh, H. Recent developments in the MAFFT multiple sequence alignment program. Brief. Bioinform. 9, 286–298 (2008).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
88.Thompson, J. D., Higgins, D. G. & Gibson, T. J. CLUSTAL W: improving the sensitivity of progressive multiple sequence alignment through sequence weighting, position-specific gap penalties and weight matrix choice. Nucleic Acids Res. 22, 4673–4680 (1994).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
89.Vaidya, G., Lohman, D. J. & Meier, R. SequenceMatrix: concatenation software for the fast assembly of multi-gene datasets with character set and codon information. Cladistics 27, 171–180 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
90.Chernomor, O., von Haeseler, A. & Minh, B. Q. Terrace aware data structure for phylogenomic inference from supermatrices. Syst. Biol. 65, 997–1008 (2016).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
91.Ronquist, F. & Huelsenbeck, J. P. MrBayes 3: Bayesian phylogenetic inference under mixed models. Bioinformatics 19, 1572–1574 (2003).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
92.Suchard, M.A. et al. Bayesian phylogenetic and phylodynamic data integration using BEAST 1.10 Virus Evol. 4, vey016 (2018).93.Rambaut, A., Suchard, M.A., Xie, D. & Drummond, A.J. Tracer v1.6 (2014). Available from http://beast.bio.ed.ac.uk/Tracer.94.Drummond, A. J. & Suchard, M. A. Bayesian random local clocks, or one rate to rule them all. BMC Biol. 8, 114 (2010).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
95.Ferreira, M. A. R. & Suchard, M. A. (2008) Bayesian analysis of elapsed times in continuous-time Markov chains. Can. J. Stat. 36, 355–368 (2008).MATH 
Article 

Google Scholar 
96.Münkemüller, T. et al. How to measure and test phylogenetic signal. Meth. Ecol. Evol. 3, 743–756 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
97.Yu, Y., Harris, A. J., Blair, C. & He, X. J. RASP (Reconstruct Ancestral State in Phylogenies): a tool for historical biogeography. Mol. Phyl. Evol. 87, 46–49 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
98.Yu, Y., Blair, C. & He, X. J. RASP 4: ancestral state reconstruction tool for multiple genes and characters. Mol. Biol. Evol. 37, 604–606 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
99.Jombart, T., Balloux, F. & Dray, S. adephylo: new tools for investigating the phylogenetic signal in biological traits. Bioinformatics 26, 1907–1909 (2010).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
100.Pennell, M. W. et al. geiger v2.0: an expanded suite of methods for fitting macroevolutionary models to phylogenetic trees. Bioinformatics 30, 2216–2218 (2014).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
101.Matzke, N. J. Model selection in historical biogeography reveals that founder-event speciation is a crucial process in island clades. Syst. Biol. 63, 951–970 (2014).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
102.Ree, R. H. & Sanmartín, I. Conceptual and statistical problems with the DEC+J model of founder-event speciation and its comparison with DEC via model selection. J. Biogeogr. 45, 741–749 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
103.Phillips, S. J., Anderson, R. P., Dudík, M., Schapire, R. E. & Blair, M. E. Opening the black box: an open-source release of Maxent. Ecography 40, 887–893 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
104.Cobos, M. E., Peterson, A. T., Barve, N. & Osorio-Olvera, L. kuenm: an R package for detailed development of ecological niche models using Maxent. PeerJ 7, e6281 (2019).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
105.R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/ (2020).106.Fick, S. E. & Hijmans, R. J. WorldClim 2: new 1km spatial resolution climate surfaces for global land areas. Int. J. Climatol. 37, 4302–4315 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
107.Escobar, L. E., Lira-Noriega, A., Medina-Vogel, G. & Peterson, A. T. Potential for spread of the white-nose fungus (Pseudogymnoascus destructans) in the Americas: use of Maxent and NicheA to assure strict model transference. Geospat. Health 9, 221–229 (2014).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
108.Peterson, A. T., Papeş, M. & Soberón, J. Rethinking receiver operating characteristic analysis applications in ecological niche modeling. Ecol. Model. 213, 63–72 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
109.Anderson, R. P., Lew, D. & Peterson, A. T. Evaluating predictive models of species’ distributions: criteria for selecting optimal models. Ecol. Model. 162, 211–232 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
110.QGIS Development Team. QGIS Geographic Information System. Open Source Geospatial Foundation Project (2020). More

1.Conant, R. T. et al. Temperature and soil organic matter decomposition rates—synthesis of current knowledge and a way forward. Glob. Change Biol. 17, 3392–3404 (2011).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
2.Yost, J. L. & Hartemink, A. E. How deep is the soil studied—an analysis of four soil science journals. Plant Soil 452, 5–18 (2020).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
3.Jobbágy, E. G. & Jackson, R. B. The vertical distribution of soil organic carbon and its relation to climate and vegetation. Ecol. Appl. 10, 423–436 (2000).Article 

Google Scholar 
4.Dove, N. C. et al. Continental-scale patterns of extracellular enzyme activity in the subsoil: an overlooked reservoir of microbial activity. Environ. Res. Lett. 15, 1040a1 (2020).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
5.Hicks Pries, C. E., Castanha, C., Porras, R. C. & Torn, M. S. The whole-soil carbon flux in response to warming. Science 355, 1420–1423 (2017).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
6.Taş, N. et al. Impact of fire on active layer and permafrost microbial communities and metagenomes in an upland Alaskan boreal forest. ISME J. 8, 1904–1919 (2014).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
7.Brewer, T. E. et al. Ecological and genomic attributes of novel bacterial taxa that thrive in subsurface soil horizons. mBio 10, e01318–e01319 (2019).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
8.Sulman, B. N. et al. Multiple models and experiments underscore large uncertainty in soil carbon dynamics. Biogeochemistry 141, 109–123 (2018).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
9.Romero-Olivares, A. L., Allison, S. D. & Treseder, K. K. Soil microbes and their response to experimental warming over time: a meta-analysis of field studies. Soil Biol. Biochem. 107, 32–40 (2017).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
10.Melillo, J. M. et al. Long-term pattern and magnitude of soil carbon feedback to the climate system in a warming world. Science 358, 101–105 (2017).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
11.Melillo, J. M. et al. Soil warming, carbon–nitrogen interactions, and forest carbon budgets. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108, 9508–9512 (2011).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
12.Crowther, T. W. et al. Quantifying global soil carbon losses in response to warming. Nature 540, 104–108 (2016).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
13.Feng, X., Simpson, A. J., Wilson, K. P., Dudley Williams, D. & Simpson, M. J. Increased cuticular carbon sequestration and lignin oxidation in response to soil warming. Nat. Geosci. 1, 836–839 (2008).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
14.Dove, N. C., Stark, J. M., Newman, G. S. & Hart, S. C. Carbon control on terrestrial ecosystem function across contrasting site productivities: the carbon connection revisited. Ecology 100, e02695 (2019).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
15.Frey, S. D., Lee, J., Melillo, J. M. & Six, J. The temperature response of soil microbial efficiency and its feedback to climate. Nat. Clim. Change 3, nclimate1796 (2013).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
16.Olander, L. P. & Vitousek, P. M. Regulation of soil phosphatase and chitinase activity by N and P availability. Biogeochemistry 49, 175–190 (2000).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
17.DeAngelis, K. M. et al. Long-term forest soil warming alters microbial communities in temperate forest soils. Front. Microbiol. 6, 104–115 (2015).18.Cheng, L. et al. Warming enhances old organic carbon decomposition through altering functional microbial communities. ISME J. 11, 1825–1835 (2017).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
19.Billings, S. A. & Ballantyne, F. How interactions between microbial resource demands, soil organic matter stoichiometry, and substrate reactivity determine the direction and magnitude of soil respiratory responses to warming. Glob. Change Biol. 19, 90–102 (2013).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
20.Rasmussen, C., Torn, M. S. & Southard, R. J. Mineral assemblage and aggregates control carbon dynamics in a California conifer forest. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 69, 1711–1721 (2005).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
21.Jones, D. L. et al. Microbial competition for nitrogen and carbon is as intense in the subsoil as in the topsoil. Soil Biol. Biochem. 117, 72–82 (2018).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
22.Pold, G. et al. Carbon use efficiency and its temperature sensitivity covary in soil bacteria. mBio 11, e02293–19 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
23.Geyer, K. M., Dijkstra, P., Sinsabaugh, R. & Frey, S. D. Clarifying the interpretation of carbon use efficiency in soil through methods comparison. Soil Biol. Biochem. 128, 79–88 (2018).24.Schmidt, M. W. I. et al. Persistence of soil organic matter as an ecosystem property. Nature 478, 49–56 (2011).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
25.Vitousek, P. M., Porder, S., Houlton, B. Z. & Chadwick, O. A. Terrestrial phosphorus limitation: mechanisms, implications, and nitrogen–phosphorus interactions. Ecol. Appl. 20, 5–15 (2010).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
26.Sullivan, B. W. et al. Assessing nutrient limitation in complex forested ecosystems: alternatives to large‐scale fertilization experiments. Ecology 95, 668–681 (2014).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
27.Hart, S. C., Firestone, M. K. & Paul, E. A. Decomposition and nutrient dynamics of ponderosa pine needles in a Mediterranean-type climate. Can. J. Forest Res. 22, 306–314 (1992).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
28.Dijkstra, P. et al. Effect of temperature on metabolic activity of intact microbial communities: evidence for altered metabolic pathway activity but not for increased maintenance respiration and reduced carbon use efficiency. Soil Biol. Biochem. 43, 2023–2031 (2011).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
29.Don, A., Rödenbeck, C. & Gleixner, G. Unexpected control of soil carbon turnover by soil carbon concentration. Environ. Chem. Lett. 11, 407–413 (2013).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
30.Rodriguez-R, L. M. & Konstantinidis, K. T. Nonpareil: a redundancy-based approach to assess the level of coverage in metagenomic datasets. Bioinformatics 30, 629–635 (2014).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
31.Rodriguez-R, L. M. & Konstantinidis, K. T. Estimating coverage in metagenomic data sets and why it matters. ISME J. 8, 2349–2351 (2014).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
32.Lombard, V., Golaconda Ramulu, H., Drula, E., Coutinho, P. M. & Henrissat, B. The carbohydrate-active enzymes database (CAZy) in 2013. Nucleic Acids Res. 42, D490–D495 (2014).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
33.Levasseur, A., Drula, E., Lombard, V., Coutinho, P. M. & Henrissat, B. Expansion of the enzymatic repertoire of the CAZy database to integrate auxiliary redox enzymes. Biotechnol. Biofuels 6, 41 (2013).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
34.Benoit, I. et al. Degradation of different pectins by fungi: correlations and contrasts between the pectinolytic enzyme sets identified in genomes and the growth on pectins of different origin. BMC Genomics 13, 321 (2012).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
35.Tveit, A. T., Urich, T. & Svenning, M. M. Metatranscriptomic analysis of arctic peat soil microbiota. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 80, 5761–5772 (2014).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
36.Huergo, L. F. & Dixon, R. The emergence of 2-Oxoglutarate as a master regulator metabolite. Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. 79, 419–435 (2015).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
37.Bai, X. et al. Expression of a β-mannosidase from Paenibacillus polymyxa A-8 in Escherichia coli and characterization of the recombinant enzyme. PLoS ONE 9, e111622 (2014).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
38.Sorensen, J. W., Dunivin, T. K., Tobin, T. C. & Shade, A. Ecological selection for small microbial genomes along a temperate-to-thermal soil gradient. Nat. Microbiol. 4, 55–61 (2019).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
39.Pold, G., Grandy, A. S., Melillo, J. M. & DeAngelis, K. M. Changes in substrate availability drive carbon cycle response to chronic warming. Soil Biol. Biochem. 110, 68–78 (2017).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
40.Yue, H. et al. The microbe-mediated mechanisms affecting topsoil carbon stock in Tibetan grasslands. ISME J. 9, 2012–2020 (2015).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
41.Xue, K. et al. Warming alters expressions of microbial functional genes important to ecosystem functioning. Front. Microbiol. 7, 668–681 (2016).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
42.Malik, A. A. et al. Defining trait-based microbial strategies with consequences for soil carbon cycling under climate change. ISME J. 14, 1–9 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
43.Johnston, E. R. et al. Responses of tundra soil microbial communities to half a decade of experimental warming at two critical depths. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 15096–15105 (2019).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
44.Soong, J. L. et al. Microbial carbon limitation: the need for integrating microorganisms into our understanding of ecosystem carbon cycling. Glob. Change Biol. 26, 1953–1961 (2020).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
45.Chapin, F. S., Matson, P. A. & Vitousek, P. Principles of Terrestrial Ecosystem Ecology (Springer Science & Business Media, 2011).46.Woodcroft, B. J. et al. Genome-centric view of carbon processing in thawing permafrost. Nature 560, 49–54 (2018).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
47.Oliverio, A. M., Bradford, M. A. & Fierer, N. Identifying the microbial taxa that consistently respond to soil warming across time and space. Glob. Change Biol. 23, 2117–2129 (2017).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
48.Pold, G. et al. Long-term warming alters carbohydrate degradation potential in temperate forest soils. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 82, 6518–6530 (2016).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
49.Morrison, E. W. et al. Warming alters fungal communities and litter chemistry with implications for soil carbon stocks. Soil Biol. Biochem. 132, 120–130 (2019).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
50.Bai, W., Wang, G., Xi, J., Liu, Y. & Yin, P. Short-term responses of ecosystem respiration to warming and nitrogen addition in an alpine swamp meadow. Eur. J. Soil Biol. 92, 16–23 (2019).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
51.Tilman, D. Niche tradeoffs, neutrality, and community structure: a stochastic theory of resource competition, invasion, and community assembly. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 101, 10854–10861 (2004).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
52.Sharrar, A. M. et al. Bacterial secondary metabolite biosynthetic potential in soil varies with phylum, depth, and vegetation type. mBio 11, e00416–e00420 (2020).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
53.Qi, J. et al. Drying-wetting cycles: effect on deep soil carbon. Soil Syst. 2, 3 (2018).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
54.Butcher, K. R., Nasto, M. K., Norton, J. M. & Stark, J. M. Physical mechanisms for soil moisture effects on microbial carbon-use efficiency in a sandy loam soil in the western United States. Soil Biol. Biochem. 150, 107969 (2020).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
55.Zhou, W. P., Shen, W. J., Li, Y. E. & Hui, D. F. Interactive effects of temperature and moisture on composition of the soil microbial community. Eur. J. Soil Biol. 68, 909–918 (2017).CAS 

Google Scholar 
56.Spohn, M., Klaus, K., Wanek, W. & Richter, A. Microbial carbon use efficiency and biomass turnover times depending on soil depth—Implications for carbon cycling. Soil Biol. Biochem. 96, 74–81 (2016).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
57.Saifuddin, M., Bhatnagar, J. M., Segrè, D. & Finzi, A. C. Microbial carbon use efficiency predicted from genome-scale metabolic models. Nat. Commun. 10, 1–10 (2019).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
58.Geyer, K. M., Kyker-Snowman, E., Grandy, A. S. & Frey, S. D. Microbial carbon use efficiency: accounting for population, community, and ecosystem-scale controls over the fate of metabolized organic matter. Biogeochemistry 127, 173–188 (2016).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
59.Dove, N. C., Safford, H. D., Bohlman, G. N., Estes, B. L. & Hart, S. C. High-severity wildfire leads to multi-decadal impacts on soil biogeochemistry in mixed-conifer forests. Ecol. Appl. 30, e02072 (2020).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
60.Bradford, M. A. et al. Thermal adaptation of soil microbial respiration to elevated temperature. Ecol. Lett. 11, 1316–1327 (2008).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
61.Walters, W. et al. Improved bacterial 16S rRNA gene (V4 and V4-5) and fungal internal transcribed spacer marker gene primers for microbial community surveys. mSystems 1, e00009–e00015 (2016).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
62.Caporaso, J. G. et al. QIIME allows analysis of high-throughput community sequencing data. Nat. Methods 7, 335–336 (2010).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
63.Quast, C. et al. The SILVA ribosomal RNA gene database project: improved data processing and web-based tools. Nucleic Acids Res. 41, D590–D596 (2013).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
64.Edgar, R. C. UPARSE: highly accurate OTU sequences from microbial amplicon reads. Nat. Methods 10, 996–998 (2013).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
65.Zhang, Z., Schwartz, S., Wagner, L. & Miller, W. A greedy algorithm for aligning DNA sequences. J. Comput. Biol. 7, 203–214 (2000).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
66.Nguyen, N. H. et al. FUNGuild: An open annotation tool for parsing fungal community datasets by ecological guild. Fungal Ecol. 20, 241–248 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
67.Bolger, A. M., Lohse, M. & Usadel, B. Trimmomatic: a flexible trimmer for Illumina sequence data. Bioinformatics 30, 2114–2120 (2014).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
68.Menzel, P., Ng, K. L. & Krogh, A. Fast and sensitive taxonomic classification for metagenomics with Kaiju. Nat. Commun. 7, 11257 (2016).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
69.Hyatt, D. et al. Prodigal: prokaryotic gene recognition and translation initiation site identification. BMC Bioinformatics 11, 119 (2010).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
70.Buchfink, B., Xie, C. & Huson, D. H. Fast and sensitive protein alignment using DIAMOND. Nat. Methods 12, 59–60 (2015).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
71.Eddy, S. R. Accelerated profile HMM searches. PLoS Comput. Biol. 7, e1002195 (2011).ADS 
MathSciNet 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
72.Li, D. et al. MEGAHIT v1.0: A fast and scalable metagenome assembler driven by advanced methodologies and community practices. Methods 102, 3–11 (2016).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
73.Bushnell, B. BBMap: A Fast, Accurate, Splice-Aware Aligner. No. LBNL-7065E (Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, 2014).74.Nurk, S., Meleshko, D., Korobeynikov, A. & Pevzner, P. A. metaSPAdes: a new versatile metagenomic assembler. Genome Res. 27, 824–834 (2017).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
75.Xue, Y., Jonassen, I., Øvreås, L. & Taş, N. Metagenome-assembled genome distribution and key functionality highlight importance of aerobic metabolism in Svalbard permafrost. FEMS Microbiol Ecol. 96, fiaa057 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
76.Wu, Y.-W., Simmons, B. A. & Singer, S. W. MaxBin 2.0: an automated binning algorithm to recover genomes from multiple metagenomic datasets. Bioinformatics 32, 605–607 (2016).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
77.Kang, D. D., Froula, J., Egan, R. & Wang, Z. MetaBAT, an efficient tool for accurately reconstructing single genomes from complex microbial communities. PeerJ 3, e1165 (2015).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
78.Sieber, C. M. K. et al. Recovery of genomes from metagenomes via a dereplication, aggregation and scoring strategy. Nat. Microbiol. 3, 836–843 (2018).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
79.Parks, D. H., Imelfort, M., Skennerton, C. T., Hugenholtz, P. & Tyson, G. W. CheckM: assessing the quality of microbial genomes recovered from isolates, single cells, and metagenomes. Genome Res. 25, 1043–1055 (2015).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
80.Jain, C., Rodriguez-R, L. M., Phillippy, A. M., Konstantinidis, K. T. & Aluru, S. High throughput ANI analysis of 90K prokaryotic genomes reveals clear species boundaries. Nat. Commun. 9, 5114 (2018).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
81.Bowers, R. M. et al. Minimum information about a single amplified genome (MISAG) and a metagenome-assembled genome (MIMAG) of bacteria and archaea. Nat. Biotechnol. 35, 725–731 (2017).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
82.Chaumeil, P.-A., Mussig, A. J., Hugenholtz, P. & Parks, D. H. GTDB-Tk: a toolkit to classify genomes with the Genome Taxonomy Database. Bioinformatics 36, 1925–1927 (2019).
Google Scholar 
83.Aziz, R. K. et al. The RAST server: rapid annotations using subsystems technology. BMC Genomics 9, 1–15 (2008).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
84.Arkin, A. P. et al. KBase: The United States Department of Energy Systems Biology Knowledgebase. Nat. Biotechnol. 36, 566–569 (2018).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
85.Zhou, Z., Tran, P., Liu, Y., Kieft, K. & Anantharaman, K. METABOLIC: a scalable high-throughput metabolic and biogeochemical functional trait profiler based on microbial genomes. bioRxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/761643 (2019).86.Emiola, A. & Oh, J. High throughput in situ metagenomic measurement of bacterial replication at ultra-low sequencing coverage. Nat. Commun. 9, 1–8 (2018).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
87.Binkley, D. & Hart, S. C. in Advances in Soil Science (ed. Stewart, B. A.) 57–112 (Springer New York, 1989).88.Fox, J. & Weisberg, S. An R companion to applied regression Ch.4. (Sage, 2019).89.Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B. & Walker, S. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J. Stat. Softw. 67, 1–48 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
90.McMurdie, P. J. & Holmes, S. phyloseq: An R package for reproducible interactive analysis and graphics of microbiome census data. PLoS ONE 8, e61217 (2013).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
91.Love, M. I., Huber, W. & Anders, S. Moderated estimation of fold change and dispersion for RNA-seq data with DESeq2. Genome Biol. 15, 550 (2014).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
92.Oksanen, J. et al. vegan: Community Ecology Package. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/vegan/index.html (2013).93.Lozupone, C. & Knight, R. UniFrac: a new phylogenetic method for comparing microbial communities. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 71, 8228–8235 (2005).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
94.Bruns, T. D., White, T. J. & Taylor, J. W. Fungal molecular systematics. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 22, 525–564 (1991).Article 

Google Scholar  More

1.Wong, M. K., Guénard, B. & Lewis, O. T. Trait-based ecology of terrestrial arthropods. Biol. Rev. 94, 999–1022. https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12488 (2019).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
2.McGill, B. J., Enquist, B. J., Weiher, E. & Westoby, M. Rebuilding community ecology from functional traits. Trends Ecol. Evol. 21, 178–185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2006.02.002 (2006).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
3.Violle, C. et al. Let the concept of trait be functional!. Oikos 116, 882–892. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0030-1299.2007.15559.x (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
4.Forrest, J. R. K., Thorp, R. W., Kremen, C. & Williams, N. M. Contrasting patterns in species and functional-trait diversity of bees in an agricultural landscape. J. Appl. Ecol. 52, 706–715. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12433 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
5.Williams, N. M. et al. Ecological and life-history traits predict bee species responses to environmental disturbances. Biol. Conserv. 143, 2280–2291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2010.03.024 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
6.Woodcock, B. A. et al. Meta-analysis reveals that pollinator functional diversity and abundance enhance crop pollination and yield. Nat. Commun. 10, 1481. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-09393-6 (2019).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
7.Gagic, V. et al. Functional identity and diversity of animals predict ecosystem functioning better than species-based indices. Proc. R. Soc. B 282, 20142620. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2014.2620 (2015).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
8.Bartomeus, I., Cariveau, D. P., Harrison, T. & Winfree, R. On the inconsistency of pollinator species traits for predicting either response to land-use change or functional contribution. Oikos 127, 306–315. https://doi.org/10.1111/oik.04507 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
9.Paull, S. H. et al. From superspreaders to disease hotspots: Linking transmission across hosts and space. Front. Ecol. Environ. 10, 75–82. https://doi.org/10.1890/110111 (2012).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
10.Perkins, S. E., Cattadori, I. M., Tagliapietra, V., Rizzoli, A. P. & Hudson, P. J. Empirical evidence for key hosts in persistence of a tick-borne disease. Int. J. Parasitol. 33, 909–917. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0020-7519(03)00128-0 (2003).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
11.Goulson, D., Nicholls, E., Botías, C. & Rotheray, E. L. Bee declines driven by combined stress from parasites, pesticides, and lack of flowers. Science 347, 1255957. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1255957 (2015).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
12.Ravoet, J. et al. Widespread occurrence of honey bee pathogens in solitary bees. J. Invertebr. Pathol. 122, 55–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jip.2014.08.007 (2014).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
13.Evison, S. E. F. et al. Pervasiveness of parasites in pollinators. PLoS ONE 7, e30641. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0030641 (2012).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
14.Dolezal, A. G. et al. Honey bee viruses in wild bees: viral prevalence, loads, and experimental inoculation. PLoS ONE 11, e0166190. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0166190 (2016).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
15.Levitt, A. L. et al. Cross-species transmission of honey bee viruses in associated arthropods. Virus Res. 176, 232–240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.virusres.2013.06.013 (2013).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
16.Figueroa, L. L. et al. Landscape simplification shapes pathogen prevalence in plant-pollinator networks. Ecol. Lett. 23, 1212–1222. https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.13521 (2020).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
17.Graystock, P. et al. Dominant bee species and floral abundance drive parasite temporal dynamics in plant-pollinator communities. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 4, 1358–1367. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-020-1247-x (2020).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
18.Greenleaf, S. S., Williams, N. M., Winfree, R. & Kremen, C. Bee foraging ranges and their relationship to body size. Oecologia 153, 589–596. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-007-0752-9 (2007).ADS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
19.Figueroa, L. L. et al. Bee pathogen transmission dynamics: deposition, persistence and acquisition on flowers. Proc. R. Soc. B 286, 20190603. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2019.0603 (2019).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
20.Palmer-Young, E. C., Calhoun, A. C., Mirzayeva, A. & Sadd, B. M. Effects of the floral phytochemical eugenol on parasite evolution and bumble bee infection and preference. Sci. Rep. 8, 2074. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-20369-2 (2018).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
21.Manson, J. S., Otterstatter, M. C. & Thomson, J. D. Consumption of a nectar alkaloid reduces pathogen load in bumble bees. Oecologia 162, 81–89. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-009-1431-9 (2010).ADS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
22.Otterstatter, M. C. & Thomson, J. D. Within-host dynamics of an intestinal pathogen of bumble bees. Parasitology 133, 749–761. https://doi.org/10.1017/S003118200600120X (2006).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
23.Rutrecht, S. T. & Brown, M. J. F. Within colony dynamics of Nosema bombi infections: disease establishment, epidemiology and potential vertical transmission. Apidologie 39, 504–514. https://doi.org/10.1051/apido:2008031 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
24.Roberts, K. E., Evison, S. E. F., Baer, B. & Hughes, W. O. H. The cost of promiscuity: Sexual transmission of Nosema microsporidian parasites in polyandrous honey bees. Sci. Rep. 5, 10982. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep10982 (2015).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
25.Schmid-Hempel, P. Parasites in Social Insects (Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1998).
Google Scholar 
26.Wuellner, C. T. Nest site preference and success in a gregarious, ground-nesting bee Dieunomia triangulifera. Ecol. Entomol. 24, 471–479. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2311.1999.00215.x (1999).Article 

Google Scholar 
27.Potts, S. & Willmer, P. Abiotic and biotic factors influencing nest-site selection by Halictus rubicundus, a ground-nesting halictine bee. Ecol. Entomol. 22, 319–328. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2311.1997.00071.x (1997).Article 

Google Scholar 
28.Cane, J. H. Soils of ground-nesting bees (Hymenoptera: Apoidea): texture, moisture, cell depth and climate. J. Kans. Entomol. Soc. 64, 406–413 (1991).
Google Scholar 
29.Leonard, R. J. & Harmon-Threatt, A. N. Methods for rearing ground-nesting bees under laboratory conditions. Apidologie 50, 689–703. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13592-019-00679-8 (2019).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
30.Folly, A. J., Koch, H., Stevenson, P. C. & Brown, M. J. F. Larvae act as a transient transmission hub for the prevalent bumblebee parasite Crithidia bombi. J. Invertebr. Pathol. 148, 81–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jip.2017.06.001 (2017).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
31.Kappeler, P. M., Cremer, S. & Nunn, C. L. Sociality and health: impacts of sociality on disease susceptibility and transmission in animal and human societies. Philos. T. R. Soc. B 370, 20140116. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2014.0116 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
32.Stow, A. et al. Antimicrobial defences increase with sociality in bees. Biol. Lett. 3, 422–424. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2007.0178 (2007).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
33.Spivak, M. & Reuter, G. S. Resistance to American foulbrood disease by honey bee colonies Apis mellifera bred for hygienic behavior. Apidologie 32, 555–565. https://doi.org/10.1051/apido:2001103 (2001).Article 

Google Scholar 
34.Pinilla-Gallego, M. S. et al. Within-colony transmission of microsporidian and trypanosomatid parasites in honey bee and bumble bee colonies. Environ. Entomol. https://doi.org/10.1093/ee/nvaa112 (2020).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
35.Nunn, C. L., Jordán, F., McCabe, C. M., Verdolin, J. L. & Fewell, J. H. Infectious disease and group size: more than just a numbers game. Philos. T. R. Soc. B 370, 20140111. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2014.0111 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
36.Adler, L. S., Barber, N. A., Biller, O. M. & Irwin, R. E. Flowering plant composition shapes pathogen infection intensity and reproduction in bumble bee colonies. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 117, 11559–11565. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2000074117 (2020).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
37.Adler, L. S. et al. Disease where you dine: plant species and floral traits associated with pathogen transmission in bumble bees. Ecology 99, 2535–2545. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecy.2503 (2018).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
38.Koch, H., Brown, M. J. F. & Stevenson, P. C. The role of disease in bee foraging ecology. Curr. Opin. Insect Sci. 21, 60–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cois.2017.05.008 (2017).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
39.Giacomini, J. J. et al. Medicinal value of sunflower pollen against bee pathogens. Sci. Rep. 8, 14394. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-32681-y (2018).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
40.LoCascio, G. M., Aguirre, L., Irwin, R. E. & Adler, L. S. Pollen from multiple sunflower cultivars and species reduces a common bumblebee gut pathogen. R. Soc. Open Sci. 6, 190279. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.190279 (2019).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
41.Gegear, R. J., Otterstatter, M. C. & Thomson, J. D. Does parasitic infection impair the ability of bumblebees to learn flower-handling techniques?. Anim. behav. 70, 209–215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2004.09.025 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
42.Gegear, R. J., Otterstatter, M. C. & Thomson, J. D. Bumble-bee foragers infected by a gut parasite have an impaired ability to utilize floral information. Proc. R. Soc. B 273, 1073–1078. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2005.3423 (2006).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
43.Goulson, D., O’Connor, S. & Park, K. J. The impacts of predators and parasites on wild bumblebee colonies. Ecol. Entomol. 43, 168–181. https://doi.org/10.1111/een.12482 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
44.Graystock, P., Meeus, I., Smagghe, G., Goulson, D. & Hughes, W. O. The effects of single and mixed infections of Apicystis bombi and deformed wing virus in Bombus terrestris. Parasitology 143, 358–365. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0031182015001614 (2016).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
45.Graystock, P., Yates, K., Darvill, B., Goulson, D. & Hughes, W. O. H. Emerging dangers: Deadly effects of an emergent parasite in a new pollinator host. J. Invertebr. Pathol. 114, 114–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jip2013.06.005 (2013).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
46.Otti, O. & Schmid-Hempel, P. Nosema bombi: a pollinator parasite with detrimental fitness effects. J. Invertebr. Pathol. 96, 118–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jip.2007.03.016 (2007).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
47.Bramke, K., Müller, U., McMahon, D. P. & Rolff, J. Exposure of larvae of the solitary bee Osmia bicornis to the honey bee pathogen Nosema ceranae affects life history. Insects 10, 380. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects10110380 (2019).Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
48.Eiri, D. M., Suwannapong, G., Endler, M. & Nieh, J. C. Nosema ceranae can infect honey bee larvae and reduces subsequent adult longevity. PLoS ONE 10, e0126330. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0126330 (2015).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
49.Mitchell, T. B. Bees of the Eastern United States: volume I. N. C. Agric. Exp. Sta. Tech. Bull 1, 1–538 (1960).
Google Scholar 
50.Mitchell, T. B. Bees of the Eastern United States: volume II. N. C. Agric. Exp. Sta. Tech. Bull II, 1–557 (1962).
Google Scholar 
51.LaBerge, W. E. A revision of the bees of the genus Andrena of the Western Hemisphere. Part XII. Subgenera Leucandrena, Ptilandrena, Scoliandrena and Melandrena. Trans. Am. Entomol. Soc. 112, 191–248 (1986).
Google Scholar 
52.Gibbs, J. Revision of the metallic Lasioglossum (Dialictus) of Eastern North America (Hymenoptera: Halictidae: Halictini). Zootaxa 3073, 1–216 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
53.Rehan, S. M. & Sheffield, C. S. Morphological and molecular delineation of a new species in the Ceratina dupla species-group (Hymenoptera: Apidae: Xylocopinae) of Eastern North America. Zootaxa 2873, 35–50 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
54.Gibbs, J., Packer, L., Dumesh, S. & Danforth, B. N. Revision and reclassification of Lasioglossum (Evylaeus), L. (Hemihalictus) and L. (Sphecodogastra) in Eastern North America (Hymenoptera: Apoidea: Halictidae). Zootaxa 3672, 1–117 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
55.Coutinho, J. G. D. E., Garibaldi, L. A. & Viana, B. F. The influence of local and landscape scale on single response traits in bees: A meta-analysis. Agr. Ecosyst. Environ. 256, 61–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2017.12.025 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
56.Bartomeus, I. et al. Historical changes in northeastern US bee pollinators related to shared ecological traits. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 110, 4656–4660. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1218503110 (2013).ADS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
57.Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B. & Walker, S. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J. Stat. Soft. 67, 1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
58.Stevenson, M. et al. epiR: Tools for the analysis of epidemiological data. R package version 0.9–62 (2015).59.Teder, T. & Tammaru, T. Sexual size dimorphism within species increases with body size in insects. Oikos 108, 321–334. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0030-1299.2005.13609.x (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
60.Müller, U., McMahon, D. P. & Rolff, J. Exposure of the wild bee Osmia bicornis to the honey bee pathogen Nosema ceranae. Agric. For. Entomol. 65, 191–199. https://doi.org/10.1111/afe.12338 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
61.Strobl, V., Yañez, O., Straub, L., Albrecht, M. & Neumann, P. Trypanosomatid parasites infecting managed honeybees and wild solitary bees. Int. J. Parasitol. 49, 605–613. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpara.2019.03.006 (2019).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
62.Ngor, L. et al. Cross-infectivity of honey and bumble bee-associated parasites across three bee families. Parasitology 147, 1–62. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0031182020001018 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
63.Figueroa, L. L., Grincavitch, C. & McArt, S. H. Crithidia bombi can infect two solitary bee species while host survivorship depends on diet. Parasitology 148, 435–442. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0031182020002218 (2021).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
64.Rhodes, J. R., McAlpine, C. A., Zuur, A., Smith, G. & Ieno, E. Mixed Effects Models and Extensions in Ecology with R Statistics for Biology and Health 469–492 (Springer, New York, 2009).
Google Scholar 
65.Burnham, K. P. & Anderson, D. R. Multimodel inference: Understanding AIC and BIC in model selection. Sociol. Method. Res. 33, 261–304. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124104268644 (2004).MathSciNet 
Article 

Google Scholar 
66.Ruiz-González, M. X. et al. Dynamic transmission, host quality, and population structure in a multi-host parasite of bumblebees. Evolution 66, 3053–3066. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1558-5646.2012.01655.x (2012).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
67.Cook-Patton, S. C., McArt, S. H., Parachnowitsch, A. L., Thaler, J. S. & Agrawal, A. A. A direct comparison of the consequences of plant genotypic and species diversity on communities and ecosystem function. Ecology 92, 915–923. https://doi.org/10.1890/10-0999.1 (2011).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
68.Goulson, D. & Sparrow, K. R. Evidence for competition between honeybees and bumblebees; effects on bumblebee worker size. J. Insect Conserv. 13, 177–181. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10841-008-9140-y (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
69.Grab, H. et al. Habitat enhancements rescue bee body size from the negative effects of landscape simplification. J. Appl. Ecol. 56, 2144–2154. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.13456 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
70.Renauld, M., Hutchinson, A., Loeb, G., Poveda, K. & Connelly, H. Landscape smplification constrains adult size in a native ground-nesting bee. PLoS ONE 11, e0150946. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0150946 (2016).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
71.Persson, A. S. & Smith, H. G. Bumblebee colonies produce larger foragers in complex landscapes. Basic Appl. Ecol. 12, 695–702. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.baae.2011.10.002 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
72.Bommarco, R. et al. Dispersal capacity and diet breadth modify the response of wild bees to habitat loss. Proc. R. Soc. B 277, 2075–2082. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2009.2221 (2010).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
73.Yerushalmi, S., Bodenhaimer, S. & Bloch, G. Developmentally determined attenuation in circadian rhythms links chronobiology to social organization in bees. J. Exp. Biol. 209, 1044–1051. https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.02125 (2006).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
74.McNeil, D. J. et al. Bumble bees in landscapes with abundant floral resources have lower pathogen loads. Sci. Rep. 10, 22306. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-78119-2 (2020).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
75.Gámez-Virués, S. et al. Landscape simplification filters species traits and drives biotic homogenization. Nat. Commun. 6, 8568. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms9568 (2015).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
76.Williams, N. M., Minckley, R. L. & Silveira, F. A. Variation in native bee faunas and its implications for detecting community changes. Conserv. Ecol. 5, 7 (2001).
Google Scholar 
77.Bartomeus, I. et al. Climate-associated phenological advances in bee pollinators and bee-pollinated plants. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 108, 20645–20649. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1115559108 (2011).ADS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
78.Stemkovski, M. et al. Bee phenology is predicted by climatic variation and functional traits. Ecol. Lett. 23, 1589–1598. https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.13583 (2020).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar  More

1.UNFCCC. Adoption of the Paris Agreement. 32 (2015).2.Fuss, S. et al. Negative emissions—Part 2: Costs, potentials and side effects. Environ. Res. Lett. 13, 063002. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aabf9f (2018).CAS 
Article 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
3.Lawrence, M. G. et al. Evaluating climate geoengineering proposals in the context of the Paris Agreement temperature goals. Nat. Commun. 9, 3734. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-05938-3 (2018).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
4.Matovic, D. Biochar as a viable carbon sequestration option: Global and Canadian perspective. Energy 36, 2011–2016. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2010.09.031 (2011).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
5.Osman, A. I., Hefny, M., Abdel Maksoud, M. I. A., Elgarahy, A. M. & Rooney, D. W. Recent advances in carbon capture storage and utilisation technologies: A review. Environ. Chem. Lett. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10311-020-01133-3 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
6.Clough, B. J. et al. Testing a new component ratio method for predicting total tree aboveground and component biomass for widespread pine and hardwood species of eastern US. Forestry 91, 575–588. https://doi.org/10.1093/forestry/cpy016 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
7.Lam, T. Y., Li, X., Kim, R. H., Lee, K. H. & Son, Y. M. Bayesian meta-analysis of regional biomass factors for Quercus mongolica forests in South Korea. J. For. Res. 26, 875–885. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11676-015-0089-x (2015).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
8.Sileshi, G. W. A critical review of forest biomass estimation models, common mistakes and corrective measures. For. Ecol. Manag. 329, 237–254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2014.06.026 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
9.Ver Planck, N. R. & MacFarlane, D. W. A vertically integrated whole-tree biomass model. Trees 29, 449–460, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00468-014-1123-x (2015).10.Jenkins, J. C., Chojnacky, D. C., Heath, L. S. & Birdsey, R. A. National-scale biomass estimators for United States tree species. For. Sci. 49, 12–35. https://doi.org/10.1093/forestscience/49.1.12 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
11.Parresol, B. R. Additivity of nonlinear biomass equations. Can. J. For. Res. 31, 865–878. https://doi.org/10.1139/x00-202 (2001).Article 

Google Scholar 
12.Parresol, B. R. Assessing tree and stand biomass: A review with examples and critical comparisons. For. Sci. 45, 573–593, https://doi.org/10.1093/forestscience/45.4.573 (1999).13.Radtke, P. et al. Improved accuracy of aboveground biomass and carbon estimates for live trees in forests of the eastern United States. Forestry 90, 32–46. https://doi.org/10.1093/forestry/cpw047 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
14.Woodall, C. W., Heath, L. S., Domke, G. M. & Nichols, M. C. Methods and equations for estimating aboveground volume, biomass, and carbon for trees in the U.S. forest inventory, 2010. 30, https://doi.org/10.2737/NRS-GTR-88 (2011).15.Chiou, L.-W., Huang, C.-H., Wu, J.-C. & Hsieh, H.-R. Report of the 4th National Forest Resource Inventory in Taiwan. Taiwan For. J. 41, 3–13 (2015).
Google Scholar 
16.Yang, T.-R., Lam, T. Y. & Kershaw, J. A. Jr. Developing relative stand density index for structurally complex mixed species cypress and pine forests. For. Ecol. Manag. 409, 425–433. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2017.11.043 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
17.Taiwan Forestry Bureau. The Fourth National Forest Resource Inventory. Vol. 78 (2017).18.Ko, S.-H. Study on the Biomass and Carbon Storage in the Zelkova serrata Plantation. MSc. Thesis, National Chung-Hsing University, https://doi.org/10.6845/NCHU.2006.00871 (2006).19.Lin, J.-C., Jeng, M.-R., Liu, S.-F. & Lee, K. J. Economic benefit evaluation of the potential CO2 sequestration by the National Reforestation Program. Taiwan J. For. Sci. 17, 311–321, https://doi.org/10.7075/TJFS.200209.0311 (2002).20.Lin, K.-C., Huang, C.-M. & Duh, C.-T. Study on estimate of carbon storages and sequestration of planted trees in Zelkova serrata plantations, Taiwan. J. Natl. Park 18, 45–58 (2008).CAS 

Google Scholar 
21.Liao, S.-H. & Wang, Y.-N. Study on carbon dioxide fixation efficiency of Cinnamomum camphora and Zelkova serrata in understory planting. Q. J. Chin. For. 35, 361–373 (2002).
Google Scholar 
22.Lambert, M. C., Ung, C. H. & Raulier, F. Canadian national tree aboveground biomass equations. Can. J. For. Res. 35, 1996–2018. https://doi.org/10.1139/x05-112 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
23.Zellner, A. An efficient method of estimating seemingly unrelated regressions and tests for aggregation bias. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 57, 348–368. https://doi.org/10.2307/2281644 (1962).MathSciNet 
Article 
MATH 

Google Scholar 
24.Henningsen, A. & Hamann, J. D. systemfit: A package for estimating systems of simultaneous equations in R. J. Stat. Softw. 23, 1–40, https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v023.i04 (2007).25.R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2020).26.Nelson, A. S., Weiskittel, A. R., Wagner, R. G. & Saunders, M. R. Development and evaluation of aboveground small tree biomass models for naturally regenerated and planted species in eastern Maine, U.S.A. Biomass Bioenergy 68, 215–227, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2014.06.015 (2014).27.Poudel, K. P., Temesgen, H., Radtke, P. J. & Gray, A. N. Estimating individual-tree aboveground biomass of tree species in the western U.S.A. Can. J. For. Res. 49, 701–714, https://doi.org/10.1139/cjfr-2018-0361 (2019).28.Carvalho, J. P. & Parresol, B. R. Additivity in tree biomass components of Pyrenean oak (Quercus pyrenaica Willd.). For. Ecol. Manag. 179, 269–276, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-1127(02)00549-2 (2003).29.He, H. et al. Allometric biomass equations for 12 tree species in coniferous and broadleaved mixed forests, Northeastern China. PLoS ONE 13, e0186226. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0186226 (2018).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
30.Cheng, C.-H., Huang, Y.-H., Menyailo, O. V. & Chen, C.-T. Stand development and aboveground biomass carbon accumulation with cropland afforestation in Taiwan. Taiwan J. For. Sci. 31, 105–118 (2016).
Google Scholar 
31.Lee, J.-H., Ko, Y. & McPherson, E. G. The feasibility of remotely sensed data to estimate urban tree dimensions and biomass. Urban For. Urban Green. 16, 208–220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2016.02.010 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
32.Park, J. H., Baek, S. G., Kwon, M. Y., Je, S. M. & Woo, S. Y. Volumetric equation development and carbon storage estimation of urban forest in Daejeon, Korea. For. Sci. Technol. 14, 97–104. https://doi.org/10.1080/21580103.2018.1452799 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
33.Yoon, T. K. et al. Allometric equations for estimating the aboveground volume of five common urban street tree species in Daegu, Korea. Urban For. Urban Green. 12, 344–349. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2013.03.006 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
34.Chiu, C. M., Lo-Cho, C.-N. & Suen, M.-Y. Pruning method and knot wound analysis of Taiwan zelkova (Zelkova serrata Hay.) plantations. Taiwan J. For. Sci. 17, 503–513, https://doi.org/10.7075/TJFS.200212.0503 (2002).35.Lo-Cho, C.-N., Chung, H.-H. & Chiu, C.-M. Effects of pruning on the growth and the branch occlusion tendency of Taiwan Zelkova (Zelkova serrata Hay.) young plantations. Bull. Taiwan For. Res. Inst. 10, 315–323, https://doi.org/10.7075/BTFRI.199509.0315 (1995).36.Shepherd, K. R. Plantation Silviculture (Springer, 1986).
Google Scholar 
37.Chiou, C.-R., Lin, J.-C. & Liu, W.-Y. The carbon benefit of thinned wood for bioenergy in Taiwan. Forests 10, 255. https://doi.org/10.3390/f10030255 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
38.Liu, W.-Y., Lin, C.-C. & Su, K.-H. Modelling the spatial forest-thinning planning problem considering carbon sequestration and emissions. For. Policy Econ. 78, 51–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2017.01.002 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
39.Rais, A., Poschenrieder, W., van de Kuilen, J.-W.G. & Pretzsch, H. Impact of spacing and pruning on quantity, quality and economics of Douglas-fir sawn timber: Scenario and sensitivity analysis. Eur. J. For. Res. 139, 747–758. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10342-020-01282-8 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
40.Kershaw, J. A., Ducey, M. J., Beers, T. W. & Husch, B. Forest Mensuration. (John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 2016). More