Philippa Kaur

Butchart, S. H. M. et al. Global biodiversity: Indicators of recent declines. Science 328, 1164–1168 (2010).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
McGill, B. J., Dornelas, M., Gotelli, N. J. & Magurran, A. E. Fifteen forms of biodiversity trend in the Anthropogene. Trends Ecol. Evol. 30, 104–113 (2015).
Google Scholar 
Bradshaw, C. J. A., Sodhi, N. S. & Brook, B. W. Tropical turmoil: A biodiversity tragedy in progress. Front. Ecol. Environ. 7, 79–87 (2009).
Google Scholar 
Newbold, T. et al. Global effects of land use on local terrestrial biodiversity. Nature 520, 45–50 (2015).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Loreau, M. et al. Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning: Current knowledge and future challenges. Science 294, 804–808 (2001).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Hooper, D. U. et al. Effects of biodiversity on ecosystem functioning: A consensus of current knowledge. Ecol. Monogr. 75, 3–35 (2005).
Google Scholar 
Hooper, D. U. et al. A global synthesis reveals biodiversity loss as a major driver of ecosystem change. Nature 486, 105–108 (2012).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Balvanera, P. et al. Quantifying the evidence for biodiversity effects on ecosystem functioning and services. Ecol. Lett. 9, 1146–1156 (2006).
Google Scholar 
Cardinale, B. J. et al. Biodiversity loss and its impact on humanity. Nature 486, 59–67 (2012).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Pasari, J. R., Levi, T., Zavaleta, E. S. & Tilman, D. Several scales of biodiversity affect ecosystem multifunctionality. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 110, 10219–10222 (2013).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Tilman, D., Isbell, F. & Cowles, J. M. Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 45, 471–493 (2014).
Google Scholar 
Murphy, G. E. P. & Romanuk, T. N. A meta-analysis of declines in local species richness from human disturbances. Ecol. Evol. 4, 91–103 (2014).
Google Scholar 
Johnson, C. N. et al. Biodiversity losses and conservation responses in the Anthropocene. Science 356, 270–275 (2017).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
de Coster, G., Banks-Leite, C. & Metzger, J. P. Atlantic forest bird communities provide different but not fewer functions after habitat loss. Proc. R. Soc. B 282, 20142844 (2015).
Google Scholar 
Riemann, J. C., Ndriantsoa, S. H., Rödel, M.-O. & Glos, J. Functional diversity in a fragmented landscape—habitat alterations affect functional trait composition of frog assemblages in Madagascar. Global Ecol. Conserv. 10, 173–183 (2017).
Google Scholar 
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 

Google Scholar 
Socolar, J. B., Gilroy, J. J., Kunin, W. E. & Edwards, D. P. How should beta-diversity inform biodiversity conservation?. Trends Ecol. Evol. 31, 67–80 (2016).
Google Scholar 
van der Plas, F. et al. Biotic homogenization can decrease landscape-scale forest multi-functionality. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 113, 3557–3562 (2016).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Mori, A. S., Isbell, F. & Seidl, R. β-diversity, community assembly, and ecosystem functioning. Trends Ecol. Evol. 33, 549–564 (2018).
Google Scholar 
Dehling, J. M. & Dehling, D. M. Conserving ecological functions of frog communities in Borneo requires diverse forest landscapes. Global Ecol. Conserv. 26, e01481 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Hector, A. & Bagchi, R. Biodiversity and ecosystem multifunctionality. Nature 448, 188–190 (2007).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Isbell, F. et al. High plant diversity is needed to maintain ecosystem services. Nature 477, 199–202 (2011).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Loreau, M., Mouquet, N. & Gonzalez, A. Biodiversity as spatial insurance in heterogeneous landscapes. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 100, 12765–12770 (2003).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Seibold, S. et al. Arthropod decline in grasslands and forests is associated with landscape-level drivers. Nature 574, 671–674 (2019).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Felipe-Lucia, M. R. et al. Land-use intensity alters networks between biodiversity, ecosystem functions, and services. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 117, 28140–28149 (2020).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Tilman, D. Functional diversity in Encyclopedia of biodiversity, Vol. 3. (ed. Levin S. A.) 109–120 (Academic Press, 2001)Cadotte, M. W., Carscadden, K. & Mirotchnick, N. Beyond species: functional diversity and the maintenance of ecological processes and services. J. Appl. Ecol. 48, 1079–1087 (2011).
Google Scholar 
Flynn, D. F. B., Mirotchnick, N., Jain, M., Palmer, M. I. & Naeem, S. Functional and phylogenetic diversity as predictors of biodiversity-ecosystem function relationships. Ecology 92, 1573–1581 (2011).
Google Scholar 
Lean, C. & Maclaurin, J. The value of phylogenetic diversity in Biodiversity conservation and phylogenetic systematics. Topics in Biodiversity and Conservation 14. (eds. Pellens, R., Grandcolas, P.) 19–38 (Springer, 2016).Owen, N. R., Gumbs, R., Gray, C. L. & Faith, D. P. Global conservation of phylogenetic diversity captures more than just functional diversity. Nat. Commun. 10, 859 (2019).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Gumbs, R., Williams, R. C., Lowney, A. M. & Smith, D. Spatial and species-level metrics reveal global patterns of irreplaceable and imperiled gecko phylogenetic diversity. Israel J. Ecol. Evolut. 66, 239–252 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Brooks, D. R., Mayden, R. L. & McLennan, D. A. Phylogeny and biodiversity: Conserving our evolutionary legacy. Trends Ecol. Evol. 7, 55–59 (1992).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Phillimore, A. B. et al. Biogeographical basis of recent phenotypic divergence among birds: a global study of subspecies richness. Evolution 61, 942–957 (2007).
Google Scholar 
Miraldo, A. et al. An Anthropocene map of genetic diversity. Science 353, 1532–1535 (2016).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Smith, B. T., Seeholzer, G. F., Harvey, M. G., Cuervo, A. M. & Brumfield, R. T. A latitudinal phylogeographic diversity gradient in birds. PLoS Biol. 15, e2001073 (2017).
Google Scholar 
Tucker, C. M. et al. Assessing the utility of conserving evolutionary history. Biol. Rev. 94, 1740–1760 (2019).
Google Scholar 
Flynn, D. F. B. et al. Loss of functional diversity under land use intensification across multiple taxa. Ecol. Lett. 12, 22–33 (2009).
Google Scholar 
Villéger, S., Miranda, J. R., Hernández, D. F. & Mouillot, D. Contrasting changes in taxonomic vs. functional diversity of tropical fish communities after habitat degradation. Ecological Applications 20, 1512–1522 (2010).Gibbons, J. W. et al. Remarkable amphibian biomass and abundance in an isolated wetland: Implications for wetland conservation. Conserv. Biol. 20, 1457–1465 (2006).
Google Scholar 
Hocking, D. J. & Babbitt, K. J. Amphibian contributions to ecosystem services. Herpetol. Conserv. Biol. 9, 1–17 (2014).
Google Scholar 
Beebee, T. J. C. Amphibian breeding and climate change. Nature 374, 219–220 (1995).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Kiesecker, J. M., Blaustein, A. R. & Belden, L. K. Complex causes of amphibian population declines. Nature 410, 681–684 (2001).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Cheng, T. L., Rovito, S. M., Wake, D. B. & Vredenburg, V. T. Coincident mass extirpation of neotropical amphibians with the emergence of the infection fungal pathogen Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 108, 9502–9507 (2011).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Wake, D. B. & Vredenburg, V. T. Are we in the midst of the sixth mass extinction? A view from the world of amphibians. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 105, 11466–11473 (2008).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Ernst, R. & Rödel, M.-O. Patterns of community composition in two tropical tree frog assemblages: Separating spatial structure and environmental effects in disturbed and undisturbed forests. J. Trop. Ecol. 24, 111–120 (2008).
Google Scholar 
Gardner, T. A. et al. The value of primary, secondary, and plantation forests for a Neotropical Herpetofauna. Conserv. Biol. 21, 775–787 (2007).
Google Scholar 
Gardner, T. A., Fitzherbert, E. B., Drewes, R. C., Howell, K. M. & Caro, T. Spatial and temporal patterns of abundance and diversity of an East African leaf litter amphibian fauna. Biotropica 39, 105–113 (2007).
Google Scholar 
Gillespie, G. R. et al. Conservation of amphibians in Borneo: relative value of secondary tropical forest and non-forest habitats. Biol. Cons. 152, 136–144 (2012).
Google Scholar 
Angarita-M., O., Montes-Correa, A. C. & Renjifo, J. M. Amphibians and reptiles of an agroforestry system in the Colombian Caribbean. Amphibian & Reptile Conservation 8, 33–52 (2015).Jiménez-Robles, O., Guayasamin, J. M., Ron, S. R. & De la Riva, I. Reproductive traits associated with species turnover of amphibians in Amazonia and its Andean slopes. Ecol. Evol. 7, 2489–2500 (2017).
Google Scholar 
Ernst, R., Linsenmair, K. E. & Rödel, M.-O. Diversity erosion beyond the species level: dramatic loss of functional diversity after selective logging in two tropical amphibian communities. Biol. Cons. 133, 143–155 (2006).
Google Scholar 
Oda, F. H. et al. Anuran species richness, composition, and breeding habitat preferences: a comparison between forest remnants and agricultural landscapes in Southern Brazil. Zool. Stud. 55, 34 (2016).
Google Scholar 
Sinsch, U., Lümkemann, K., Rosar, K., Schwarz, C. & Dehling, J. M. Acoustic niche partitioning in an anuran community inhabiting an Afromontane wetland (Butare, Rwanda). African Zool. 47, 60–73 (2012).
Google Scholar 
Tumushimire, L., Mindje, M., Sinsch, U. & Dehling, J. M. The anuran diversity of cultivated wetlands in Rwanda: Melting pot of generalists?. Salamandra 56, 99–112 (2020).
Google Scholar 
REMA. Rwanda State of Environment and Outlook Report 2017 – Achieving Sustainable Urbanization. (Rwanda Environment Management Authority, Government of Rwanda, 2017).Su, J. C., Debinski, D. M., Jakubauskas, M. E. & Kindscher, K. Beyond species richness: Community similarity as a measure of cross-taxon congruence for coarse-filter conservation. Conserv. Biol. 18, 167–173 (2004).
Google Scholar 
Gibson, L. et al. Primary forests are irreplaceable for sustaining tropical biodiversity. Nature 478, 378–381 (2011).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Zimkus, B. M., Rödel, M.-O. & Hillers, A. Complex patterns of continental speciation: Molecular phylogenetics and biogeography of sub-Saharan puddle frogs (Phrynobatrachus). Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 55, 883–900 (2010).
Google Scholar 
Dehling, J. M. & Sinsch, U. Partitioning of morphospace in larval and adult reed frogs (Anura: Hyperoliidae: Hyperolius) of the Central African Albertine Rift. Zool. Anz. 280, 65–77 (2019).
Google Scholar 
Mazel, F. et al. Prioritizing phylogenetic diversity captures functional diversity unreliably. Nat. Commun. 9, 2888 (2018).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Haddad, C. F. B. & Prado, C. P. A. Reproductive modes and their unexpected diversity in the Atlantic forest of Brazil. Bioscience 55, 207–217 (2005).
Google Scholar 
Capinha, C., Essl, F., Seebens, H., Moser, D. & Pereira, H. M. The dispersal of alien species redefines biogeography in the Anthropocene. Science 348, 1248–1251 (2015).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Alroy, J. Effects of habitat disturbance on tropical forest biodiversity. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 114, 6056–6061 (2017).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Dehling, J. M. & Sinsch, U. Diversity of Ptychadena in Rwanda and taxonomic status of P. chrysogaster Laurent, 1954 (Amphibia, Anura, Ptychadenidae). ZooKeys 356, 69–102 (2013).IUCN. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2020–1. https://www.iucnredlist.org (2020).Portillo, F., Greenbaum, E., Menegon, M., Kusamba, C. & Dehling, J. M. Phylogeography and species boundaries of Leptopelis (Anura: Arthroleptidae) from the Albertine Rift. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 82, 75–86 (2015).
Google Scholar 
Channing, A., Dehling, J. M., Lötters, S. & Ernst, R. Species boundaries and taxonomy of the African River Frogs (Anura: Pyxicephalidae: Amietia). Zootaxa 4155, 1–76 (2016).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Rödel, M.-O. & Ernst, R. Measuring and monitoring amphibian diversity in tropical forests. I. An evaluation of methods with recommendations for standardization. Ecotropica 10, 1–14 (2004).Channing, A. & Howell, K. M. Amphibians of East Africa. (Chimaira, 2006).Jetz, W. & Pyron, R. A. The interplay of past diversification and evolutionary isolation with present imperilment across the amphibian tree of life. Nat. Ecol. Evolut. 2, 850–858 (2018).
Google Scholar 
Villéger, S., Mason, N. W. & Mouillot, D. New multidimensional functional diversity indices for a multifaceted framework in functional ecology. Ecology 89, 2290–2301 (2008).
Google Scholar 
Maire, E., Grenouillet, G., Brosse, S. & Villéger, S. How many dimensions are needed to accurately assess functional diversity? A pragmatic approach for assessing the quality of functional spaces. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 24, 728–740 (2015).
Google Scholar 
Faith, D. P. Conservation evaluation and phylogenetic diversity. Biol. Cons. 61, 1–10 (1992).
Google Scholar 
Dehling, D. M. et al. Functional and phylogenetic diversity and assemblage structure of frugivorous birds along an elevational gradient in the tropical Andes. Ecography 37, 1047–1055 (2014).
Google Scholar 
Baselga, A. et al. betapart: partitioning beta diversity into turnover and nestedness components. R package version 1.5.6. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=betapart (2022).Dehling, D. M. et al. Specialists and generalists fulfil important and complementary functional roles in ecological processes. Funct. Ecol. 35, 1810–1821 (2021).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Dehling, D. M., Barreto, E. & Graham, C. H. The contribution of mutualistic interactions to functional and phylogenetic diversity. Trends Ecol. Evol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2022.05.006 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
R Core Team. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2021). More

Methods for data analysis in figuresAll analyses in figures were performed using Mathematica 12.3 (Wolfram Research, Inc., Champaign, IL, USA).Analysis in Fig. 1
C&D. To calculate integrated abundances of E. huxleyi cells and EhV, we first selected days for which all the bags had a non-null value. Values were then summed up to obtain the integrated abundance.E&J. We computed a standard linear fit between the E. huxleyi total abundances and total EhV abundances for covered and uncovered bags separately. We followed the same procedure for the correlations in panel J and provide a comparison between different models in Supplementary Fig. 5.Analysis in Fig. 2
A. The ASVs that were selected appeared at a relative abundance of at least 2% in at least 4 samples for the 0.2–2 µm 16S sequences and at least in 8 samples for the 2–20 µm 18S sequences. Abundances were concatenated for each time point and normalized by row, to have maximum relative abundance of 1 across all samples. ASVs were sorted by the position of their individual center of mass ({t}_{{CM}}) defined by$${t}_{{CM}}=,frac{mathop{sum}limits_{i}{t}_{i}f({t}_{i})}{mathop{sum}limits_{i}f({t}_{i})}$$
(1)
with i representing the different time points and f(({t}_{i})) the relative abundance of the ASV. The same figure for the individual bags in shown in Supplementary Fig. 14 and Supplementary Fig. 15.B. We selected 18S ASVs with a maximum relative abundance of at least 2% and observed in at least five samples. We averaged relative abundance across bags and then smoothed the time series with a moving average filter (width 2). Then, we grouped all ASVs into clusters based on their cosine distance using Mathematica’s FindClusters function and the KMeans method. The number of possible clusters ranged from 2 to 12, and the final number of clusters was decided using the silhouette method71. Only silhouette scores for 2 and 6 clusters were positive (between-cluster distance minus within-cluster distance).D. We subset reads that map to either Flavobacteriales or Fhodobacterales, then renormalized within each class, taking the mean over bags. Results per bag are shown in Supplementary Fig. 9.F. The turnover time was defined by the exponential rate k at which the Bray-Curtis similarity ({BC}(t)) declined over time. To this end, for a given bag, we computed the Bray–Curtis similarity between the composition vector at a starting day t’ with all following days t, giving a curve that declined roughly exponentially. For earlier starting days (for which the similarity curves declined the furthest), we found that the Bray–Curtis similarity never reached 0 but instead leveled out around ({{BC}}_{infty }=0.05) (due to ASVs that are constantly present in all the samples and maintain a minimal level of similarity between bags). Thus, we imposed an offset at(,{{BC}}_{infty }) for all fits (using Mathematica’s FindFit function) with the function:$${BC}(t)=(1-{{BC}}_{{{infty }}}) times {e}^{-kleft({t}^{{prime} }-tright)}+{{BC}}_{{{infty }}}$$
(2)
The turnover is averaged over bags, showing the standard deviation as error bars in the figure.G. To find differentially abundant ASVs, we first selected a subset of ASVs that had a maximum abundance of at least 10%, and performed Mann–Whitney U-Tests between the relative abundance values of a given ASV in the focal bag and all the other bags over all timepoints of the bloom’s demise. Correcting for multiple testing, we found four 16S ASVs that were differentially abundant in any of the bags, three of which were specific to bag 7, shown in Fig. 2g; and five 18S ASVs, two specific to bags 5 and 6 (Rhizosolenia delicatula and Aplanochytrium), one specific to bag 4 (Pterosperma), and two specific to bag 7 (MAST-1C and Woloszynskia halophila, shown in Fig. 2g).H. The divergence between bags was calculated as follows: we first measured, for each bag, the Bray–Curtis distance between this given bag and all the other bags at the end of the experiment (Supplementary Fig. 13). In order to control for the existing differences between bags at the beginning of the bloom, Bray–Curtis distances were normalized according to the differences between bags at the starting day of the E. huxleyi bloom. As the exact starting days of the bloom is not clear, we normalized for starting days 11, 12, or 13. The plot shows averages with the standard deviation as error bars. For the 18S microbiome, we first removed reads that map to E. huxleyi to reduce bias toward bag 7 (which had by far the lowest E. huxleyi abundance, Fig. 1c).Analysis in Fig. 3
A. Functional annotation of dominant 18S ASVs was based on manual literature search for the 100 most abundant 18S ASVs. Automatic annotation using the functional database created by72 gave qualitatively identical results but contained fewer organisms (covering about 50% of reads). The relative abundance of each trait was obtained by summing up the relative abundance of all the species harboring a specific trait. We used the annotations from72 to further subdivide heterotrophs into osmotrophs, saprotrophs, and other types of heterotrophy (e.g., grazing), ignoring ASVs with missing annotations.D. Growth rates were computed by fitting a linear model to the log-transformed absolute abundances. For thraustochytrids, we measured growth rates until the abundances reached their maximum, i.e., for days indicated by solid lines in Fig. 3b. For bacteria in the 0.2–2 micron fraction, we measured growth rates during the bloom and demise of E. huxleyi, i.e., for the time period after day 15 until the final day, except for bag 4 (until day 22) and bag 7 (until day 18) to account for their different bloom and demise dynamics. For bacteria in the 2–20 micron fraction, we measured growth rates similarly, starting after day 10 until the final day, except bags 4 and 7 (until day 22).E. To quantify the rate of change k of the biomass ratio of thraustochytrids to bacteria we fit a linear function to the log of biomass ratio from day 10 to the time point t where the ratio was maximal; for bag 7, this was day 18, for all others, day 23. We thus have:$$,{{log }},{BR},(t)={kt},+,{{log }},{BR},(0)$$
(3)
Analysis in Fig. 4
C&D. Since TEP accumulates over time, it cannot be expressed as a weighted sum of phytoplankton abundances. Instead, we formulate the model as a recursive relation where TEP can be produced by E. huxleyi, naked nanophytoplankton, and picophytoplankton, and degraded or lost through sinking:$${TEP}left(tright)=left(1-dright){TEP}left(t-1right)+{a}_{E}Eleft(tright)+{a}_{N}Nleft(tright)+{a}_{P}Pleft(tright),$$
(4)
The amount of TEP at time t is given by the fraction (1-d) of TEP at time t-1, where d corresponds to the fraction of TEP that is degraded between time points, plus the amount of TEP produced by the phytoplankton cells present at time t (or time t-1, which gives equivalent results). E, N, and P correspond to E. huxleyi, naked nanophytoplankton, and picophytoplankton, respectively. The parameter ({a}_{E}) corresponds to the amount of TEP produced per E. huxleyi cell, reported in panel D. ({a}_{E}) is set to be fixed through time, and different for each bag. This recursion can be solved to give an explicit expression for TEP(t):$${TEP}left(tright)=mathop{sum }limits_{{t}^{{prime} }=0}^{t}{left(1-dright)}^{t-{t}^{{prime} }}[{a}_{E}Eleft({t}^{{prime} }right)+{a}_{N}Nleft({t}^{{prime} }right)+{a}_{P}Pleft({t}^{{prime} }right)].$$
(5)
This functional form was then used to perform a linear model fitting with the constraint ({a}_{i}ge 0) for various values of the parameter d. The best fit, defined by maximum ({R}^{2}) over the resulting linear model, was used to fix d = 0.12. Our model considers that the fraction of non-calcified E. huxleyi cells in the nanophytoplankton counts is small.Larger phytoplankton cells ( >40 μm) filtered out from flow-cytometry measurements can also be a major source of TEP, despite low cell density. In order to verify this, FlowCam data was analyzed. None of the identified classes of larger phytoplankton (such as Phaeocystis or Dinobryon) increased in a systematic manner toward later stages of the bloom, explaining why larger phytoplankton were not included in the TEP model (Supplementary Fig. 24 and Supplementary Fig. 25).E. Using the smFISH method that reports the proportion of infected E. huxleyi cells, we estimated the amount of TEP produced from infected cells. We first used the least infected uncovered bags (bags 1 and 3) as a baseline to fix model parameters such as how much TEP does a non-infected cell produce. We then split the E. huxleyi abundance into an uninfected subpopulation producing T TEP/cell as in the uninfected bags, and an infected subpopulation producing I×T TEP/cells. To define I, we combined the fixed model parameters (i.e., amount of TEP produced per cell from Fig. 4d for bags 1 and 3) with the measured fraction of infected cells. We adjusted the factor I = 4 to minimize deviation of the measure total TEP concentration from the model prediction including the two subpopulations. The same procedure was used for panel H, using the corresponding model for PIC.F&G. To model the amount of PIC produced per cell we assume that the measured PIC only increases via new E. huxleyi coccoliths. The equivalent model for PIC reads$${PIC}left(tright)=left(1-dright){PIC}left(t-1right)+{a}_{E}{{max }}left(Eleft(tright)-Eleft(t-1right)right).$$
(6)
Where ({a}_{E}) is the amount of PIC produced per cell, and displayed in panel G. Using the same procedure as for TEP, we obtain the best fit for d = 0.0075. Our PIC model assumes that all PIC production comes from E. huxleyi, supported by large occurrence of E. huxleyi cells observed in scanning electron microscopy (Supplementary Fig. 1).Methods for data collectionMesocosm core setupThe mesocosm experiment AQUACOSM VIMS-Ehux was carried out for 24 days between 24th May (day 0) and 16th June (day 23) 2018 in Raunefjorden at the University of Bergen’s Marine Biological Station Espegrend, Norway (60°16′11 N; 5°13′07E). The experiment consisted of seven enclosure bags made of transparent polyethylene (11 m3, 4 m deep and 2 m wide, permeable to 90% photosynthetically active radiation) mounted on floating frames and moored to a raft in the middle of the fjord. The bags were filled with surrounding fjord water (day −1; pumped from 5 m depth) and continuously mixed by aeration (from day 0 onwards). Each bag was supplemented with nutrients at a nitrogen to phosphorus ratio of 16:1 according to the optimal Redfield Ratio (1.6 µM NaNO3 and 0.1 µM KH2PO4 final concentration) on days 0–5 and 14–17, whereas on days 6, 7 and 13 only nitrogen was added to limit the growth of pico-eukaryotes and favor the growth of E. huxleyi that is more resistant to phosphate limited conditions. Silica was not added as a nutrient source in order to suppress the growth of diatoms and to enhance E. huxleyi proliferation. Bags 5, 6, 7 were covered to collect aerosols and guarantee minimal contamination while sampling for core variables. Bags 1, 2, 3, 4 were sampled for additional assays such as metabolomics, polysaccharides profiling, and vesicles, which increase sampling time and potential for contamination.Measurement of dissolved inorganic nutrientsUnfiltered seawater aliquots (10 mL) were collected from each bag and the surrounding fjord water in 12 mL polypropylene tubes and stored frozen at −20 °C. Dissolved inorganic nutrients were measured with standard segmented flow analysis with colorimetric detection73, using a Bran & Luebe autoanalyser. Data are available in ref. 74 and values for individual bags are plotted in Supplementary Fig. 26.Measurement of water temperature and salinityWater temperature and salinity were measured in each bag and the surrounding fjord water using a SD204 CTD/STD (SAIV A/S, Laksevag, Norway). Data points were averaged for 1–3 m depth (descending only). When this depth was not available, the available data points were taken. Data are missing for the fjord in days 0–1. Outliers were removed for the following samples: bag 1 at days 0, 4, 15; bag 7 at day 15. Data are available in ref. 74.Flow cytometry measurementsSamples for flow cytometric counts were collected twice a day, in the morning (7:00 a.m.) and evening (8:00–9:00 p.m.) from each bag and the surrounding fjord, which served as an environmental reference. Water samples were collected in 50 mL centrifugal tubes from 1 m depth, pre-filtered using 40 µm cell strainers, and immediately analyzed with an Eclipse iCyt (Sony Biotechology, Champaign, IL, USA) flow cytometer. A total volume of 300 µL with a flow rate of 150 µL/min was analyzed with the machine’s software ec800 v1.3.7. A threshold was applied based on the forward scatter signal to reduce the background noise.Phytoplankton populations were identified by plotting the autofluorescence of chlorophyll versus phycoerythrin and side scatter: calcified E. huxleyi (high side scatter and high chlorophyll), Synechococcus (high phycoerythrin and low chlorophyll), nano- and picophytoplankton (high and low chlorophyll, respectively). Chlorophyll fluorescence was detected by FL4 (excitation (ex): 488 nm and emission (em): 663–737 nm). Phycoerythrin was detected by FL3 (ex: 488 nm and em: 570–620 nm). Raw.fcs files were extracted and analyzed in R using ‘flowCore’ and ‘ggcyto’ packages and all data are available on Dryad74. In particular, the gating strategy was adapted to each day and each bag and individual plots for each days and each bag can be found in the Dryad link.For bacteria and viral counts, 200 µL of sample were fixed with 4 µL of 20% glutaraldehyde (final concentration of 0.5%) for 1 h at 4 °C and flash frozen. They were thawed and stained with SYBR gold (Invitrogen) that was diluted 1:10,000 in Tris-EDTA buffer, incubated for 20 min at 80 °C and cooled to room temperature. Bacteria and viruses were counted and analyzed using a Cytoflex and identified based on the Violet SSC-A versus FITC-A by comparing to reference samples containing fixed bacteria and viruses from lab cultures. A total volume of 60 µL with a flow rate of 10 µL/min was analyzed. A threshold was applied based on the forward scatter signal to reduce the background noise. For plotting bacteria (Fig. 1h), a moving average of three successive days was used.Enumeration of extracellular EhV abundance by qPCRDNA extracts from filters from the core sampling (see above) were diluted 100 times, and 1 µL was then used for qPCR analysis. EhV abundance was determined by qPCR for the major capsid protein (mcp) gene: 5′-acgcaccctcaatgtatggaagg-3′ (mcp1F) and 5′-rtscrgccaactcagcagtcgt -3′ (mcp94Rv). All reactions were carried out in technical triplicates using water as a negative control. For all reactions, Platinum SYBER Green qPCR SuperMix-UDG with ROX (Invitrogen, Carlsbad, CA, USA) was used as described by the manufacturer. Reactions were performed on a QuantStudio 5 Real-Time PCR System equipped with the QuantStudio Design and Analysis Software version 1.5.1 (Applied Biosystems, Foster City, CA, USA) as follows: 50 °C for 2 min, 95 °C for 5 min, 40 cycles of 95 °C for 15 s, and 60 °C for 30 s. Results were calibrated against serial dilutions of EhV201 DNA at known concentrations, enabling exact enumeration of viruses. Samples showing multiple peaks in melting curve analysis or peaks that were not corresponding to the standard curves were omitted. Data are available in ref. 74. A comparison of viral counts based on flow-cytometry and qPCR is shown in Supplementary Fig. 2.FlowCam analysisSamples for automated flow imaging microcopy were collected once a day in the morning (7:00 a.m.) from each bag and the surrounding fjord, which served as an environmental reference. Water samples were collected in 50 mL centrifugal tubes from 1 m depth, kept at 12 °C in darkness, and analyzed within 2 h of sampling, using a FlowCAM II (Fluid Imaging Technologies Inc., Scarborough, ME, USA) fitted with a 300 µm path length flow cell and a 4× microscope objective. Images were collected using auto-image mode at a rate of 7 frames/second. A sample volume of 10 mL was processed at a flow rate of 0.7 mL/min. Individual objects within each sample were clustered and annotated using the Ecotaxa platform75. Absolute counts for major groups, including the most abundant ciliate category Ciliophora U04, were then exported and normalized by the individual amount of water volume processed for each sample.Data are available under “Flowcam Composite Aquacosm_2018_VIMS-Ehux” project on Ecotaxa.Scanning electron microscopy50 ml of water samples from bags or fjord were collected on polycarbonate filters (0.2 µm pore size, 47 mm diameter, Millipore). The filters were air dried and stored on petri-slides (Millipore) at room temperature. Prior to observation, a small fraction of the filter was cut and coated with 2 nm of iridium using a Safematic CCU-010 coater (Safematic GMBH, Switzerland). Samples were observed on a Zeiss Ultra SEM that was set at a working distance of 6.2 ± 0.1 mm, an acceleration voltage of 3.0 kV and an aperture size of 30 mm. The secondary electron detector was used for image acquisition.Paired dilution experimentPhytoplankton growth and microzooplankton grazing rates were estimated using the dilution method76,77. A slightly modified version of the method was used with only one low dilution level (20%) and an undiluted treatment used78. Rates calculated using this method are considered conservative but accurate when compared with those using multiple dilution levels and a linear regression. Water from bags 1–4 was collected using a peristaltic pump at ~1 m depth and mixed into a 20 L clean carboy. Water was screened through a 200 µm mesh to remove larger mesozooplankton. The collected water was shaded with black plastic and returned to shore. Dilution experiments were set-up in a temperature-controlled room, set to ambient water temperature (±2 °C). Particle-free diluent (FSW) was prepared by gravity filtering whole seawater (WSW) through a 0.45 µm inline filter (PALL Acropak™ Membrane capsule) into a clean carboy. To the FSW, WSW was gently siphoned at a proportion of 20%. The 20% dilution and 100% WSW treatments were prepared in single carboys and then siphoned into triplicate 1.2 L Nalgene™ incubation bottles. To control for nutrient limitation, additional triplicate bottles of 100% WSW were incubated without added nutrients (10 µM nitrate and 1 µM phosphate). The incubation bottles were incubated for 24 h in an outdoor tank maintained at in-situ water temperatures by a flow-through system of ambient seawater. Bottles could float freely, and the seawater inflow caused gentle agitation throughout the 24 h period. A screen was used to mimic light conditions experienced within the mesocosm bags.To quantify viral mortality, we used the paired dilution method79 which involves setting up an extra low dilution level (20%) containing water filtered through a tangential flow filter (TFF) of 100 kDå to remove viral particles. During this experiment, TFF water was produced 1–2 days prior to the dilution experiment, to ensure the chemical composition of the water was as similar as possible, and experiments could be set up in a timely manner.At T0 hours and T24 hours from all dilution experiments, sub-samples were taken for the determination of chlorophyll-a and flow cytometry. For chlorophyll-a, 100–150 mL of seawater was filtered under low vacuum pressure through a 47 mm Whatman GF/F filters (effective pore size 0.7 µm), and then extracted in 7 mL of 97% methanol at 4 °C in the dark for 12 h. All chlorophyll readings were conducted on a Turner TD700 fluorometer80. Methanol blanks were included, and all samples were corrected for phaeophytin using a drop of 10% hydrochloric acid and then reading the sample again81.Water samples (2 × 1 mL) for flow cytometry were taken at T0 and T24 of dilution experiments for the determination of phytoplankton abundances. Water samples were taken in triplicate from T0, and from each bottle at T24. Samples were immediately fixed in 20 µL of glutaraldehyde (final concentration More

Brown, J. S., Laundre, J. W. & Gurung, M. The ecology of fear: optimal foraging, game theory, and trophic interactions. J. Mammal. 80, 385–399 (1999).
Google Scholar 
Laundré, J. W., Hernández, L. & Altendorf, K. B. Wolves, elk, and bison: reestablishing the ‘landscape of fear’ in Yellowstone National Park, US.A. Can. J. Zool. 79, 1401–1409 (2001).
Google Scholar 
Atkins, J. L. et al. Cascading impacts of large-carnivore extirpation in an African ecosystem. Science 364, 173–177 (2019).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Laundre, J. W., Hernandez, L. & Ripple, W. J. The landscape of fear: ecological implications of being afraid. Open Ecol. J. 3, 1–7 (2010).
Google Scholar 
Loggins, A. A., Shrader, A. M., Monadjem, A. & McCleery, R. A. Shrub cover homogenizes small mammals’ activity and perceived predation risk. Sci. Rep. 9, 16857 (2019).
Google Scholar 
Whittingham, M. J. & Evans, K. L. The effects of habitat structure on predation risk of birds in agricultural landscapes. Ibis 146, 210–220 (2004).
Google Scholar 
Marshall, K. L. A., Philpot, K. E. & Stevens, M. Microhabitat choice in island lizards enhances camouflage against avian predators. Sci. Rep. 6, 19815 (2016).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Stevens, M., Troscianko, J., Wilson-Aggarwal, J. K. & Spottiswoode, C. N. Improvement of individual camouflage through background choice in ground-nesting birds. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 1, 1325–1333 (2017).
Google Scholar 
Wilson-Aggarwal, J. K., Troscianko, J. T., Stevens, M. & Spottiswoode, C. N. Escape distance in ground-nesting birds differs with individual level of camouflage. Am. Nat. 188, 231–239 (2016).
Google Scholar 
Troscianko, J., Wilson-Aggarwal, J., Stevens, M. & Spottiswoode, C. N. Camouflage predicts survival in ground-nesting birds. Sci. Rep. 6, 19966 (2016).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Gaston, K. J., Duffy, J. P., Gaston, S., Bennie, J. & Davies, T. W. Human alteration of natural light cycles: causes and ecological consequences. Oecologia 176, 917–931 (2014).
Google Scholar 
Gaston, K. J., Davies, T. W., Nedelec, S. L. & Holt, L. A. Impacts of artificial light at night on biological timings. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 48, 49–68 (2017).
Google Scholar 
Falchi, F. et al. The new world atlas of artificial night sky brightness. Sci. Adv. 2, e1600377 (2016).
Google Scholar 
Gaston, K. J. et al. Pervasiveness of biological impacts of artificial light at night. Integr. Comp. Biol. 61, 1098–1110 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Sanders, D., Frago, E., Kehoe, R., Patterson, C. & Gaston, K. J. A meta-analysis of biological impacts of artificial light at night. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 5, 74–81 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Kronfeld-Schor, N., Visser, M. E., Salis, L. & van Gils, J. A. Chronobiology of interspecific interactions in a changing world. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 372, 20160248 (2017).
Google Scholar 
Underwood, C. N., Davies, T. W. & Queir Os, A. M. Artificial light at night alters trophic interactions of intertidal invertebrates. J. Anim. Ecol. 86, 781–789 (2017).
Google Scholar 
Burger, J., Howe, M. A., Hahn, D. C. & Chase, J. Effects of tide cycles on habitat selection and habitat partitioning by migrating shorebirds. Auk 94, 743–758 (1977).
Google Scholar 
Granadeiro, J. P., Dias, M. P., Martins, R. C. & Palmeirim, J. M. Variation in numbers and behaviour of waders during the tidal cycle: implications for the use of estuarine sediment flats. Acta Oecologica 29, 293–300 (2006).
Google Scholar 
Lourenço, P. M. et al. The energetic importance of night foraging for waders wintering in a temperate estuary. Acta Oecologica 34, 122–129 (2008).
Google Scholar 
McNeil, R., Drapeau, P. & Goss-Custard, J. D. The occurrence and adaptive significance of nocturnal habits in waterfowl. Biol. Rev. 67, 381–419 (1992).
Google Scholar 
Martin, G. R. Visual fields and their functions in birds. J. Ornithol. 148, 547–562 (2007).
Google Scholar 
Martin, G. R. What is binocular vision for? A birds’ eye view. J. Vis. 9, 1–19 (2009).
Google Scholar 
Davies, T. W., Duffy, J. P., Bennie, J. & Gaston, K. J. The nature, extent, and ecological implications of marine light pollution. Front. Ecol. Environ. 12, 347–355 (2014).
Google Scholar 
Leopold, M. F., Philippart, C. J. M. & Yorio, P. Nocturnal feeding under artificial light conditions by Brown-hooded Gull (Larus maculipennis) in Puerto Madryn harbour (Chubut Province, Argentina). Hornero 25, 55–60 (2010).
Google Scholar 
Pugh, A. R. & Pawson, S. M. Artificial light at night potentially alters feeding behaviour of the native southern black-backed gull (Larus dominicanus). Notornis 63, 37–39 (2016).
Google Scholar 
Santos, C. D. et al. Effects of artificial illumination on the nocturnal foraging of waders. Acta Oecologica 36, 166–172 (2010).
Google Scholar 
Montevecchi, W. A. Influences of Artificial Light on Marine Birds. in Ecological Consequences of Artificial Night Lighting (eds. Rich, C. & Longcore, T.) 94–113 (Island Press, 2006).Dwyer, R. G., Bearhop, S., Campbell, H. A. & Bryant, D. M. Shedding light on light: benefits of anthropogenic illumination to a nocturnally foraging shorebird. J. Anim. Ecol. 82, 478–485 (2013).
Google Scholar 
Blumstein, D. T. Developing an evolutionary ecology of fear: how life history and natural history traits affect disturbance tolerance in birds. Anim. Behav. 71, 389–399 (2006).
Google Scholar 
Stankowich, T. & Blumstein, D. T. Fear in animals: a meta-analysis and review of risk assessment. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 272, 2627–2634 (2005).
Google Scholar 
Caro, T. Antipredator Defenses in Birds and Mammals. (University of Chicago Press, 2005).Tillmann, J. E. Fear of the dark: night-time roosting and anti-predation behaviour in the grey partridge (Perdix perdix L.). Behaviour 146, 999–1023 (2009).
Google Scholar 
IUCN. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2022-1. https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/22693190/117917038 (2022).Brown, D. et al. The Eurasian Curlew—the most pressing bird conservation priority in the UK? Br. Birds 108, 660–668 (2015).
Google Scholar 
Franks, S. E., Douglas, D. J. T., Gillings, S. & Pearce-Higgins, J. W. Environmental correlates of breeding abundance and population change of Eurasian Curlew Numenius arquata in Britain. Bird. Study 64, 393–409 (2017).
Google Scholar 
Desholm, M. & Kahlert, J. Avian collision risk at an offshore wind farm. Biol. Lett. 1, 296–298 (2005).
Google Scholar 
Clarke, J. A. Moonlight’s influence on predator/prey interactions between short-eared owls (Asio flammeus) and Deermice (Peromyscus maniculatus). Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 13, 205–209 (1983).
Google Scholar 
Mandelik, Y., Jones, M. & Dayan, T. Structurally complex habitat and sensory adaptations mediate the behavioural responses of a desert rodent to an indirect cue for increased predation risk. Evol. Ecol. Res. 5, 501–515 (2003).
Google Scholar 
Alexander, R. D. The Evolution of Social Behavior | Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 5, 325–383 (1974).
Google Scholar 
Pulliam, H. R. On the advantages of flocking. J. Theor. Biol. 38, 419–422 (1973).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Barnard, C. J. Flock feeding and time budgets in the house sparrow (Passer domesticus L.). Anim. Behav. 28, 295–309 (1980).
Google Scholar 
Cooper, W. E. Jr. et al. Effects of risk, cost, and their interaction on optimal escape by nonrefuging Bonaire whiptail lizards, Cnemidophorus murinus. Behav. Ecol. 14, 288–293 (2003).
Google Scholar 
Lagos, P. A. et al. Flight initiation distance is differentially sensitive to the costs of staying and leaving food patches in a small-mammal prey. Can. J. Zool. 87, 1016–1023 (2009).
Google Scholar 
Ydenberg, R. C. & Dill, L. M. The economics of fleeing from predators. Adv. Study Behav. 16, 229–249 (1986).
Google Scholar 
Tucker, V. A., Tucker, A. E., Akers, K. & Enderson, J. H. Curved flight paths and sideways vision in peregrine falcons (Falco peregrinus). J. Exp. Biol. 203, 3755–3763 (2000).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Carr, J. M. & Lima, S. L. Wintering birds avoid warm sunshine: predation and the costs of foraging in sunlight. Oecologia 174, 713–721 (2014).
Google Scholar 
van den Hout, P. J. & Martin, G. R. Extreme head-tilting in shorebirds: predator detection and sun avoidance. Wader Study Group Bull. 118, 18–21 (2011).
Google Scholar 
Ferguson, J. W. H., Galpin, J. S. & de Wet, M. J. Factors affecting the activity patterns of black-backed jackals Canis mesomelas. J. Zool. 214, 55–69 (1988).
Google Scholar 
Pyke, G. H. Optimal foraging theory: a critical review. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 15, 523–575 (1984).
Google Scholar 
Stephens, D. W. & Krebs, J. R. Foraging Theory. (Princeton University Press, 1986).Mouritsen, K. N. Predator avoidance in night-feeding dunlins calidris alpina: a matter of concealment. Ornis Scand. 23, 195–198 (1992).
Google Scholar 
Blumstein, D. T. Flight-initiation distance in birds is dependent on intruder starting distance. J. Wildl. Manag. 67, 852–857 (2003).
Google Scholar 
Troscianko, J. OSpRad; an open-source, low-cost, high-sensitivity spectroradiometer (p. 2022.12.09.519768). bioRxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.12.09.519768 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hartig, F. DHARMa: residual diagnostics for hierarchical (multi-level/mixed) regression models. R package version 0.4.4. http://florianhartig.github.io/DHARMa/ (2022).Core Team, R. R: a Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, 2022).
Google Scholar  More

Daskalova, G. N. et al. Landscape-scale forest loss as a catalyst of population and biodiversity change. Science 368(6497), 1341–1347 (2020).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Betts, M. G. et al. Extinction filters mediate the global effects of habitat fragmentation on animals. Science 366(6470), 1236–1239 (2019).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Siddig, A. A., Ellison, A. M., Ochs, A., Villar-Leeman, C. & Lau, M. K. How do ecologists select and use indicator species to monitor ecological change? Insights from 14 years of publication in Ecological Indicators. Ecol. Ind. 60, 223–230 (2016).
Google Scholar 
Thancharoen, A. Well managed firefly tourism: A good tool for firefly conservation in Thailand. Lampyrid. 2, 142–148 (2012).
Google Scholar 
Hwang, Y. T., Moon, J., Lee, W. S., Kim, S. A. & Kim, J. Evaluation of firefly as a tourist attraction and resource using contingent valuation method based on a new environmental paradigm. J. Qual. Assur. Hosp. Tour. 21(3), 320–336 (2019).Carlson, A. D. & Copeland, J. Flash communication in fireflies. Q. Rev. Biol. 60(4), 415–436 (1985).
Google Scholar 
Evans, T. R., Salvatore, D., van de Pol, M. & Musters, C. J. M. Adult firefly abundance is linked to weather during the larval stage in the previous year. Ecol. Entomol. 44(2), 265–273 (2018).
Google Scholar 
Lewis, S. M. et al. A global perspective on firefly extinction threats. Bioscience 70(2), 157–167 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Cao, C. Q., Zhang, Y., Wang, Y. Z. & He, H. Progress in the research, protection, development and utilization of fireflies. J. Environ. Entomol.1–36 (2022).Myers, N., Mittermeier, R. A., Mittermeier, C. G., da Fonseca, G. A. B. & Kent, J. Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 403(6772), 853–858 (2000).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Thorn, J. S., Nijman, V., Smith, D. & Nekaris, K. A. I. Ecological niche modelling as a technique for assessing threats and setting conservation priorities for Asian slow lorises (Primates:Nycticebus). Divers. Distrib. 15(2), 289–298 (2009).
Google Scholar 
Elith, J. & Leathwick, J. R. Species distribution models: Ecological explanation and prediction across space and time. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 40(1), 677–697 (2009).
Google Scholar 
Phillips, S. J., Anderson, R. P. & Schapire, R. E. Maximum entropy modeling of species geographic distributions. Ecol. Model. 190(3–4), 231–259 (2006).
Google Scholar 
Hirzel, A. H., Hausser, J., Chessel, D. & Perrin, N. Ecological-Niche Factor Analysis: How to compute habitat-suitability maps without absence data?. Ecology 83(7), 2027–2036 (2002).
Google Scholar 
Nelder, J. A. & Wedderburn, R. W. Generalized linear models. J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. A (General). 135(3), 370–384 (1972).
Google Scholar 
Hastie, T. J. Generalized additive models. Statistical models in S. Routledge. 249–307 (2017).Stockwell, D. R. & Noble, I. R. Induction of sets of rules from animal distribution data: A robust and informative method of data analysis. Math. Comput. Simul. 33(5–6), 385–390 (1992).
Google Scholar 
Beaumont, L. J., Hughes, L. & Poulsen, M. Predicting species distributions: use of climatic parameters in BIOCLIM and its impact on predictions of species’ current and future distributions. Ecol. Model. 186(2), 251–270 (2005).
Google Scholar 
Jung, J. M., Lee, W. H. & Jung, S. Insect distribution in response to climate change based on a model: Review of function and use of CLIMEX. Entomol. Res. 46(4), 223–235 (2016).
Google Scholar 
Phillips, S. J. & Dudík, M. Modeling of species distributions with Maxent: new extensions and a comprehensive evaluation. Ecography 31(2), 161–175 (2008).
Google Scholar 
Moreno, R., Zamora, R., Molina, J. R., Vasquez, A. & Herrera, M. Á. Predictive modeling of microhabitats for endemic birds in South Chilean temperate forests using Maximum entropy (Maxent). Eco. Inform. 6(6), 364–370 (2011).
Google Scholar 
Wang, Z. et al. Prediction of potential distribution of the invasive Chrysanthemum Lace Bug, Corythucha marmorata in China based on Maxent. J. Environ. Entomol. 41(3), 626–633 (2019).
Google Scholar 
Li, A. et al. MaxEnt modeling to predict current and future distributions of Batocera lineolata (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) under climate change in China. Ecoscience 27(1), 23–31 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Sutherland, L. N., Powell, G. S. & Bybee, S. M. Validating species distribution models to illuminate coastal fireflies in the South Pacific (Coleoptera: Lampyridae). Sci. Rep. 11(1), 1–12 (2021).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Fu, X. H., Ballantyne, L. A. & Lambkin, C. Emeia gen. nov., a new genus of Luciolinae fireflies from China (Coleoptera: Lampyridae) with an unusual trilobite-like larva, and a redescription of the genus Curtos Motschulsky. Zootaxa. 3403(1), 1–53 (2012).Idris, N. S. et al. The dynamics of landscape changes surrounding a firefly ecotourism area. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 29, e01741 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Santiago-Blay, J. A. Silent Sparks: The Wondrous World of Fireflies. Life: The Excitement of Biology. (2016).Picchi, M. S., Avolio, L., Azzani, L., Brombin, O. & Camerini, G. Fireflies and land use in an urban landscape: the case of Luciola italica L.(Coleoptera: Lampyridae) in the city of Turin. J. Insect Conserv. 17(4), 797–805 (2013).Pearsons, K. A., Lower, S. E. & Tooker, J. F. Toxicity of clothianidin to common Eastern North American fireflies. PeerJ 9, e12495 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Madruga Rios, O. & Hernández Quinta, M. Larval Feeding Habits of the Cuban Endemic FireflyAlecton discoidalisLaporte (Coleoptera: Lampyridae). Psyche J. Entomol. 2010, 1–5 (2010).Roberge, J. M. & Angelstam, P. E. R. Usefulness of the umbrella species concept as a conservation tool. Conserv. Biol. 18(1), 76–85 (2004).
Google Scholar 
Bowen-Jones, E. & Entwistle, A. Identifying appropriate flagship species: The importance of culture and local contexts. Oryx 36(2), 189–195 (2002).
Google Scholar 
Walpole, M. J. & Leader-Williams, N. Tourism and flagship species in conservation. Biodivers. Conserv. 11(3), 543–547 (2002).Zhejiang Provincial Bureau of Statistics. Zhejiang physical geography profile, http://tjj.zj.gov.cn/col/col1525489/index.html (2022).Zhejiang Provincial Forestry Department. Announcement of Forest Resources and Their Ecological Function Value in Zhejiang Province. Zhejiang Daily. https://doi.org/10.38328/n.cnki.nzjrb.2016.002829 (2016).Boria, R. A., Olson, L. E., Goodman, S. M. & Anderson, R. P. Spatial filtering to reduce sampling bias can improve the performance of ecological niche models. Ecol. Model. 275, 73–77 (2014).
Google Scholar 
Brown, J. L. SDM toolbox: A python-based GIS toolkit for landscape genetic, biogeographic and species distribution model analyses. Methods Ecol. Evol. 5(7), 694–700 (2014).
Google Scholar 
Fick, S. E. & Hijmans, R. J. WorldClim 2: New 1-km spatial resolution climate surfaces for global land areas. Int. J. Climatol. 37(12), 4302–4315 (2017).
Google Scholar 
Elvidge, C. D., Zhizhin, M., Ghosh, T., Hsu, F.-C. & Taneja, J. Annual time series of global VIIRS nighttime lights derived from monthly averages: 2012 to 2019. Remote Sens. 13(5), 922 (2021).ADS 

Google Scholar 
WAN, J. et al. Predicting the potential geographic distribution of Bactrocera bryoniae and Bactrocera neohumeralis (Diptera: Tephritidae) in China using MaxEnt ecological niche modeling. J. Integr. Agric. 19(8), 2072–2082 (2020).Zhou, R. et al. Projecting the potential distribution of glossina morsitans (Diptera: Glossinidae) under climate change using the MaxEnt model. Biology. 10(11), 1150 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Hill, M. P., Hoffmann, A. A., McColl, S. A. & Umina, P. A. Distribution of cryptic blue oat mite species in Australia: current and future climate conditions. Agric. For. Entomol. 14(2), 127–137 (2011).
Google Scholar 
Su, H., Bista, M. & Li, M. Mapping habitat suitability for Asiatic black bear and red panda in Makalu Barun National Park of Nepal from Maxent and GARP models. Sci. Rep. 11(1), 1 (2021).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Proosdij, A. J., Sosef, M., Wieringa, J. & Raes, N. Minimum required number of specimen records to develop accurate species distribution models. Ecography 39, 542–552 (2016).
Google Scholar 
Lobo, J. M., Jiménez-Valverde, A. & Real, R. AUC: A misleading measure of the performance of predictive distribution models. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 17(2), 145–151 (2008).
Google Scholar 
Allouche, O., Tsoar, A. & Kadmon, R. Assessing the accuracy of species distribution models: Prevalence, kappa and the true skill statistic (TSS). J. Appl. Ecol. 43(6), 1223–1232 (2006).
Google Scholar 
Liu, C., Newell, G. & White, M. On the selection of thresholds for predicting species occurrence with presence-only data. Ecol. Evol. 6(1), 337–348 (2016).
Google Scholar 
Swets, J. A. Measuring the accuracy of diagnostic systems. Science 240(4857), 1285–1293 (1988).ADS 
CAS 
MATH 

Google Scholar 
Pearce, J. & Ferrier, S. Evaluating the predictive performance of habitat models developed using logistic regression. Ecol. Model. 133(3), 225–245 (2000).
Google Scholar 
Gama, M., Crespo, D., Dolbeth, M. & Anastácio, P. M. Ensemble forecasting of Corbicula fluminea worldwide distribution: projections of the impact of climate change. Aquat. Conserv. Mar. Freshwat. Ecosyst. 27(3), 675–684 (2017).
Google Scholar 
Zhao, Y., Deng, X., Xiang, W., Chen, L. & Ouyang, S. Predicting potential suitable habitats of Chinese fir under current and future climatic scenarios based on Maxent model. Eco. Inform. 64, 101393 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Evans, T. R., Salvatore, D., van de Pol, M. & Musters, C. J. M. Adult firefly abundance is linked to weather during the larval stage in the previous year. Ecol. Entomol. 44(2), 265–273 (2018).Chettri, B., Bhupathy, S. & Acharya, B. K. Distribution pattern of reptiles along an eastern Himalayan elevation gradient India. Acta Oecol. 36(1), 16–22 (2010).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Brown, J. H. Mammals on mountainsides: elevational patterns of diversity. Global Ecol. Biogeogr. 10(1), 101–109 (2001).Gairola, S., Sharma, C. M., Ghildiyal, S. K. & Suyal, S. Tree species composition and diversity along an altitudinal gradient in moist tropical montane valley slopes of the Garhwal Himalaya India. For. Sci. Technol. 7(3), 91–102 (2011).
Google Scholar 
Pearson, R. G., Raxworthy, C. J., Nakamura, M. & Townsend Peterson, A. Predicting species distributions from small numbers of occurrence records: A test case using cryptic geckos in Madagascar. J. Biogeogr. 34(1), 102–117 (2007).Hernandez, P. A., Graham, C. H., Master, L. L. & Albert, D. L. The effect of sample size and species characteristics on performance of different species distribution modeling methods. Ecography 29(5), 773–785 (2006).
Google Scholar 
Abe, N. Kansei estimation on luminescence of Firefly-Kansei information measurement and welfare utilization. J. Japan Soc. Kansei Eng. 3(2), 41–50 (2004).
Google Scholar 
Buckley, R. et al. Economic value of protected areas via visitor mental health. Nat. Commun. 10(1), 1 (2019).
Google Scholar 
Lewis, S. M. et al. Firefly tourism: Advancing a global phenomenon toward a brighter future. Conserv. Sci. Pract. 3(5), 1 (2021).
Google Scholar  More

Millard, J. et al. Global effects of land-use intensity on local pollinator biodiversity. Nat. Commun. 12, 2902 (2021).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Haddad, N. M. et al. Habitat fragmentation and its lasting impact on Earth’s ecosystems. Sci. Adv. 1, e1500052 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Valiente-Banuet, A. et al. Beyond species loss: the extinction of ecological interactions in a changing world. Funct. Ecol. 29, 299–307 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Rybicki, J., Abrego, N. & Ovaskainen, O. Habitat fragmentation and species diversity in competitive communities. Ecol. Lett. 23, 506–517 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Chase, J. M., Blowes, S. A., Knight, T. M., Gerstner, K. & May, F. Ecosystem decay exacerbates biodiversity loss with habitat loss. Nature 584, 238–243 (2020).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Ewers, R. M. & Didham, R. K. Confounding factors in the detection of species responses to habitat fragmentation. Biol. Rev. 81, 117–142 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
Didham, R. K. Ecological consequences of habitat fragmentation. In Encyclopedia of Life Sciences (ed Jansson, R.), 61, 1–39 (Wiley, UK2010).Aizen, M. A., Sabatino, M. & Tylianakis, J. M. Specialization and rarity predict nonrandom loss of interactions from mutualist networks. Science 335, 1486–1489 (2012).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Spiesman, B. J. & Inouye, B. D. Habitat loss alters the architecture of plant-pollinator interaction networks. Ecology 94, 2688–2696 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Aizen, M. A. et al. The phylogenetic structure of plant-pollinator networks increases with habitat size and isolation. Ecol. Lett. 19, 29–36 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Emer, C. et al. Seed-dispersal interactions in fragmented landscapes-a metanetwork approach. Ecol. Lett. 21, 484–493 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Fortuna, M. A. & Bascompte, J. Habitat loss and the structure of plant-animal mutualistic networks. Ecol. Lett. 9, 278–283 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
Grass, I., Jauker, B., Steffan-Dewenter, I., Tscharntke, T. & Jauker, F. Past and potential future effects of habitat fragmentation on structure and stability of plant-pollinator and host-parasitoid networks. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2, 1408–1417 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Glenn R. Matlack & John A. Litvaitis. Forest edges. In Maintaining Biodiversity in Forest Ecosystems (ed Hunter, M.) 6, 210–233 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1999).Hadley, A. S. & Betts, M. G. The effects of landscape fragmentation on pollination dynamics: absence of evidence not evidence of absence. Biol. Rev. 87, 526–544 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ibanez, I., Katz, D. S. W., Peltier, D., Wolf, S. M. & Barrie, B. T. C. Assessing the integrated effects of landscape fragmentation on plants and plant communities: the challenge of multiprocess-multiresponse dynamics. J. Ecol. 102, 882–895 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Morreale, L. L., Thompson, J. R., Tang, X., Reinmann, A. B. & Hutyra, L. R. Elevated growth and biomass along temperate forest edges. Nat. Commun. 12, 7181 (2021).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Martinez-Ramos, M., Alvarez-Buylla, E. & Sarukhan, J. Tree demography and gap dynamics in a tropical rain forest. Ecology 70, 555–558 (1989).Article 

Google Scholar 
Yamamoto, S. I. Forest gap dynamics and tree regeneration. J. For. Res. 5, 223–229 (2000).Article 

Google Scholar 
Schnitzer, S. A. & Carson, W. P. Treefall gaps and the maintenance of species diversity in a tropical forest. Ecology 82, 913–919 (2001).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kricher, J. A Shifting Mosaic: Rain Forest Development and Dynamics. In Tropical Ecology 6, 188–226 (Princeton Univ. Press, 2011).Gayer, C. et al. Flowering fields, organic farming and edge habitats promote diversity of plants and arthropods on arable land. J. Appl. Ecol. 58, 1155–1166 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bailey, S. et al. Distance from forest edge affects bee pollinators in oilseed rape fields. Ecol. Evol. 4, 370–380 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Thebault, E. & Fontaine, C. Stability of ecological communities and the architecture of mutualistic and trophic networks. Science 329, 853–856 (2010).Article 
CAS 

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

Google Scholar 
Traveset, A., Castro-Urgal, R., Rotllan-Puig, X. & Lazaro, A. Effects of habitat loss on the plant-flower visitor network structure of a dune community. Oikos 127, 45–55 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Rezende, E. L., Lavabre, J. E., Guimaraes, P. R., Jordano, P. & Bascompte, J. Non-random coextinctions in phylogenetically structured mutualistic networks. Nature 448, 925–928 (2007).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Staddon, P., Lindo, Z., Crittenden, P. D., Gilbert, F. & Gonzalez, A. Connectivity, non-random extinction and ecosystem function in experimental metacommunities. Ecol. Lett. 13, 543–552 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wardle, D. A., Bardgett, R. D., Callaway, R. M. & Van der Putten, W. H. Terrestrial ecosystem responses to species gains and losses. Science 332, 1273–1277 (2011).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Sargent, R. D. & Ackerly, D. D. Plant-pollinator interactions and the assembly of plant communities. Trends Ecol. Evol. 23, 123–130 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bastolla, U. et al. The architecture of mutualistic networks minimizes competition and increases biodiversity. Nature 458, 1018–1020 (2009).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Rohr, R. P., Saavedra, S. & Bascompte, J. On the structural stability of mutualistic systems. Science 345, 1253497 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Dunne, J. A., Williams, R. J. & Martinez, N. D. Network structure and biodiversity loss in food webs: robustness increases with connectance. Ecol. Lett. 5, 558–567 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pawar, S. Why are plant-pollinator networks nested? Science 345, 383–383 (2014).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Kaiser-Bunbury, C. N., Muff, S., Memmott, J., Muller, C. B. & Caflisch, A. The robustness of pollination networks to the loss of species and interactions: a quantitative approach incorporating pollinator behaviour. Ecol. Lett. 13, 442–452 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Evans, D. M., Pocock, M. J. O. & Memmott, J. The robustness of a network of ecological networks to habitat loss. Ecol. Lett. 16, 844–852 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ponisio, L. C., Gaiarsa, M. P. & Kremen, C. Opportunistic attachment assembles plant-pollinator networks. Ecol. Lett. 20, 1261–1272 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wilson, M. C. et al. Habitat fragmentation and biodiversity conservation: key findings and future challenges. Landsc. Ecol. 31, 219–227 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Zhong, L., Didham, R. K., Liu, J., Jin, Y. & Yu, M. Community re-assembly and divergence of woody plant traits in an island-mainland system after more than 50 years of regeneration. Divers. Distrib. 27, 1435–1448 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Liu, J. et al. The asymmetric relationships of the distribution of conspecific saplings and adults in forest fragments. J. Plant Ecol. 13, 398–404 (2020).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Ewers, R. M., Bartlam, S. & Didham, R. K. Altered species interactions at forest edges: contrasting edge effects on bumble bees and their phoretic mite loads in temperate forest remnants. Insect Conserv. Divers. 6, 598–606 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wardhaugh, C. W. The spatial and temporal distributions of arthropods in forest canopies: uniting disparate patterns with hypotheses for specialisation. Biol. Rev. Camb. Philos. Soc. 89, 1021–1041 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lowman, M. Life in the treetops – an overview of forest canopy science and its future directions. Plants People Planet 3, 16–21 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Nakamura, A. et al. Forests and their canopies: achievements and horizons in canopy science. Trends Ecol. Evol. 32, 438–451 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lennartsson, T. Extinction thresholds and disrupted plant-pollinator interactions in fragmented plant populations. Ecology 83, 3060–3072 (2002).
Google Scholar 
Aguilar, R., Ashworth, L., Galetto, L. & Aizen, M. A. Plant reproductive susceptibility to habitat fragmentation: review and synthesis through a meta-analysis. Ecol. Lett. 9, 968–980 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kremen, C. et al. Pollination and other ecosystem services produced by mobile organisms: a conceptual framework for the effects of land-use change. Ecol. Lett. 10, 299–314 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
Goulson, D., Nicholls, E., Botias, C. & Rotheray, E. L. Bee declines driven by combined stress from parasites, pesticides, and lack of flowers. Science 347, 1255957 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gathmann, A. & Tscharntke, T. Foraging ranges of solitary bees. J. Anim. Ecol. 71, 757–764 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
Winfree, R., Bartomeus, I. & Cariveau, D. P. Native pollinators in anthropogenic habitats. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 42, 1–22 (2011).
Google Scholar 
Torné-Noguera, A. et al. Determinants of spatial distribution in a bee community: nesting resources, flower resources, and body size. PLoS ONE 9, e97255 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Roswell, M., Dushoff, J. & Winfree, R. A conceptual guide to measuring species diversity. Oikos 130, 321–338 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Schoereder, J. H. et al. Should we use proportional sampling for species-area studies? J. Biogeogr. 31, 1219–1226 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
Jordano, P. Patterns of mutualistic interactions in pollination and seed dispersal: connectance, dependence asymmetries, and coevolution. Am. Nat. 129, 657–677 (1987).Article 

Google Scholar 
Devoto, M., Medan, D. & Montaldo, N. H. Patterns of interaction between plants and pollinators along an environmental gradient. Oikos 109, 461–472 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
Petanidou, T., Kallimanis, A. S., Tzanopoulos, J., Sgardelis, S. P. & Pantis, J. D. Long-term observation of a pollination network: fluctuation in species and interactions, relative invariance of network structure and implications for estimates of specialization. Ecol. Lett. 11, 564–575 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Brodie, J. F. et al. Secondary extinctions of biodiversity. Trends Ecol. Evol. 29, 664–672 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Vazquez, D. P. & Aizen, M. A. Asymmetric specialization: a pervasive feature of plant-pollinator interactions. Ecology 85, 1251–1257 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
Memmott, J., Waser, N. M. & Price, M. V. Tolerance of pollination networks to species extinctions. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 271, 2605–2611 (2004).
Google Scholar 
Malhi, Y., Gardner, T. A., Goldsmith, G. R., Silman, M. R. & Zelazowski, P. Tropical forests in the Anthropocene. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 39, 125–159 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lewis, S. L., Edwards, D. P. & Galbraith, D. Increasing human dominance of tropical forests. Science 349, 827–832 (2015).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Fletcher, R. J. Jr et al. Is habitat fragmentation good for biodiversity? Biol. Conserv. 226, 9–15 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ren, P., Si, X. & Ding, P. Stable species and interactions in plant-pollinator networks deviate from core position in fragmented habitats. Ecography 2022, e06102 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Fortuna, M. A. et al. Nestedness versus modularity in ecological networks: two sides of the same coin? J. Anim. Ecol. 79, 811–817 (2010).
Google Scholar 
Bascompte, J., Jordano, P., Melian, C. J. & Olesen, J. M. The nested assembly of plant-animal mutualistic networks. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 100, 9383–9387 (2003).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Almeida-Neto, M., Guimaraes, P., Guimaraes, P. R. Jr, Loyola, R. D. & Ulrich, W. A consistent metric for nestedness analysis in ecological systems: reconciling concept and measurement. Oikos 117, 1227–1239 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ulrich, W., Almeida-Neto, M. & Gotelli, N. J. A consumer’s guide to nestedness analysis. Oikos 118, 3–17 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Dicks, L. V., Corbet, S. A. & Pywell, R. F. Compartmentalization in plant-insect flower visitor webs. J. Anim. Ecol. 71, 32–43 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
Beckett, S. J. Improved community detection in weighted bipartite networks. R. Soc. Open Sci. 3, 140536 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Oksanen, J. et al. vegan: Community Ecology Package. R package version 2.5-7 (2020). https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=veganDormann, C. F. et al. bipartite: Visualising Bipartite Networks and Calculating Some (Ecological) Indices. R package version 2.16 (2021). https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=bipartitePocock, M. J. O., Evans, D. M. & Memmott, J. The robustness and restoration of a network of ecological networks. Science 335, 973–977 (2012).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Scherber, C. et al. Bottom-up effects of plant diversity on multitrophic interactions in a biodiversity experiment. Nature 468, 553–556 (2010).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Schleuning, M. et al. Ecological networks are more sensitive to plant than to animal extinction under climate change. Nat. Commun. 7, 13965 (2016).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Shipley, B. Confirmatory path analysis in a generalized multilevel context. Ecology 90, 363–368 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lefcheck, J. S. piecewiseSEM: piecewise structural equation modelling in R for ecology, evolution, and systematics. Methods Ecol. Evol. 7, 573–579 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Grace, J. B., Scheiner, S. M. & Schoolmaster, D. R. Jr. Structural equation modeling: building and evaluating causal models. In Ecological Statistics: From Principles to Applications (eds Fox, G. A. et al.), 8, 168–199 (Oxford Univ. Press, 2015).Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B. & Walker, S. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J. Stat. Softw. 67, 1–48 (2014).
Google Scholar 
Shipley, B. The AIC model selection method applied to path analytic models compared using a d-separation test. Ecology 94, 560–564 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Murphy, M. semEff: Automatic Calculation of Effects for Piecewise Structural Equation Models. R package version 0.6.0 (2021). https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=semEffDudgeon, P. A comparative investigation of confidence intervals for independent variables in linear regression. Multivar. Behav. Res. 51, 139–153 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gotelli, N. J. & Graves, G. R. Null Models in Ecology (Smithsonian Inst. Press, 1996).Jung, V., Violle, C., Mondy, C., Hoffmann, L. & Muller, S. Intraspecific variability and trait-based community assembly. J. Ecol. 98, 1134–1140 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2020). More

When I first came to the Amazon from central Brazil in 1978, I was planning to stay just a year, but I was mesmerized by the size of the rainforest’s rivers and its biodiversity. I ended up staying longer and earned my master’s degree in aquatic biology in 1984 from the National Institute for Amazonian Research (INPA), in Manaus, Brazil. I then went to get my PhD in ecology and evolutionary biology at the University of Arizona in Tucson, and returned to Manaus in 1998 to work as an ichthyologist at INPA.I was part of the team that started INPA’s fish collection in 1978. At the time, most scientific information on Amazonian fish, including specimens, had been collected by researchers and stored at other institutions around the world. Brazilians couldn’t easily access any of it. Now, INPA has preserved and catalogued more than 600,000 fish, all of which are available to our graduate students and scientific community.
Women in science
This picture, from last June, was taken at a Manicoré River creek in northwest Brazil during a Greenpeace expedition. I’m holding a bag of small fish, collected using sieves.Since 2006, the riverside communities on the Manicoré have been advocating for a reserve to protect their land from non-sustainable practices. They asked Greenpeace to help map the area’s biodiversity to bolster their application. Greenpeace in turn invited INPA researchers for its mapping expedition. We spent 20 days collecting and registering the wide range of creatures in the Manicoré’s basins.Besides fires, the Amazon has been hit hard by deforestation and industrial activities. We registered a decline in populations of several fish species after the construction of the hydroelectric complex of Belo Monte — the second- largest in the world — in the Xingu River. These species can thrive only in the oxygenated environment of running rivers and waterfalls, which have been largely destroyed. More

Ceballos, G., Ehrlich, P. R. & Dirzo, R. Biological annihilation via the ongoing sixth mass extinction signaled by vertebrate population losses and declines. PNAS 114, E6089–E6096 (2017).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Dirzo, R. et al. Defaunation in the Anthropocene. Science 345, 401–406 (2014).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Ceballos, G., Ehrlich, P. R. & Raven, P. H. Vertebrates on the brink as indicators of biological annihilation and the sixth mass extinction. PNAS 117, 13596–13602 (2020).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Butchart, S. H. et al. Global biodiversity: Indicators of recent declines. Science 328, 1164–1168 (2010).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Excoffier, L., Foll, M. & Petit, R. J. Genetic consequences of range expansions. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 40, 481–501 (2009).
Google Scholar 
Arenas, M., Ray, N., Currat, M. & Excoffier, L. Consequences of range contractions and range shifts on molecular diversity. Mol. Biol. Evol. 29, 207–218 (2012).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Banks, S. C. et al. How does ecological disturbance influence genetic diversity?. Trends Ecol. Evol. 28, 670–679 (2013).
Google Scholar 
Branco, C., Ray, N., Currat, M. & Arenas, M. Influence of Paleolithic range contraction, admixture and long-distance dispersal on genetic gradients of modern humans in Asia. Mol. Ecol. 29, 2150–2159 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Lomolino, M. V. & Channell, R. Splendid isolation: Patterns of geographic range collapse in endangered mammals. J. Mammal. 76(2), 335–347 (1995).
Google Scholar 
Lomolino, M. V. & Channell, R. Range collapse, re-introductions, and biogeographic guidelines for conservation. Conserv. Biol. 12, 481–484 (1998).
Google Scholar 
Channell, R. & Lomolino, M. V. Dynamic biogeography and conservation of endangered species. Nature 403, 84–86 (2000).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Channell, R. & Lomolino, M. V. Trajectories to extinction: Spatial dynamics of the contraction of geographical ranges. J. Biogeogr. 27, 169–179 (2000).
Google Scholar 
Laliberte, A. S. & Ripple, W. J. Range contractions of North American carnivores and ungulates. Bioscience 54, 123–138 (2004).
Google Scholar 
Donald, P. F. & Greenwood, J. J. Spatial patterns of range contraction in British breeding birds. Ibis 143, 593–601 (2001).
Google Scholar 
Boakes, E. H., Isaac, N. J., Fuller, R. A., Mace, G. M. & McGowan, P. J. Examining the relationship between local extinction risk and position in range. Conserv. Biol. 32, 229–239 (2018).
Google Scholar 
Spielman, D., Brook, B. W. & Frankham, R. Most species are not driven to extinction before genetic factors impact them. PNAS 101(42), 15261–15264 (2004).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Hoelzel, A. R. et al. Elephant seal genetic variation and the use of simulation models to investigate historical population bottlenecks. J. Hered. 84, 443–449 (1993).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Amos, W. & Balmford, A. When does conservation genetics matter?. Heredity 87, 257–265 (2001).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Reed, D. H. & Frankham, R. Correlation between fitness and genetic diversity. Conserv. Biol. 17, 230–237 (2003).
Google Scholar 
Carvalho, C. D. S. et al. Habitat loss does not always entail negative genetic consequences. Front. Genet. 10, 1101 (2019).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Wheeler, B. A., Prosen, E., Mathis, A. & Wilkinson, R. F. Population declines of a long-lived salamander: A 20+-year study of hellbenders, Cryptobranchus alleganiensis. Biol. Cons. 109, 151–156 (2003).
Google Scholar 
Walkup, D. K., Leavitt, D. J. & Fitzgerald, L. A. Effects of habitat fragmentation on population structure of dune-dwelling lizards. Ecosphere 8, e01729 (2017).
Google Scholar 
Mikle, N., Graves, T. A., Kovach, R., Kendall, K. C. & Macleod, A. C. Demographic mechanisms underpinning genetic assimilation of remnant groups of a large carnivore. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 283, 20161467 (2016).
Google Scholar 
DeWoody, J. A., Harder, A. M., Mathur, S. & Willoughby, J. R. The long-standing significance of genetic diversity in conservation. Mol. Ecol. 30(17), 4147–4154 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Kardos, M., Armstrong, E. E., Fitzpatrick, S. W. & Funk, W. C. The crucial role of genome-wide genetic variation in conservation. PNAS 118(48), e210462118 (2021).
Google Scholar 
García-Dorado, A. & Caballero, A. Neutral genetic diversity as a useful tool for conservation biology. Conserv. Genet. 22, 541–545 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Charlesworth, B. Effective population size and patterns of molecular evolution and variation. Nat. Rev. Genet. 10, 195–205 (2009).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Eyre-Walker, A. & Keightley, P. D. The distribution of fitness effects of new mutations. Nat. Rev. Genet. 8, 610–618 (2007).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Haller, B. C., Galloway, J., Kelleher, J., Messer, P. W. & Ralph, P. L. Tree-sequence recording in SLiM opens new horizons forward-time simulation of whole genomes. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 19, 552–566 (2018).
Google Scholar 
Kelleher, J., Thornton, K. R., Ashander, J. & Ralph, P. L. Efficient pedigree recording for fast population genetics simulation. PLoS Comput. Biol. 14, e1006581 (2018).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Haller, B. C. & Messer, P. W. SLiM 3: Forward genetic simulations beyond the Wright–Fisher model. Mol. Biol. Evol. 36, 632–637 (2019).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Rodríguez, J. P. Range contraction in declining North American bird populations. Ecol. Appl. 12, 238–248 (2002).
Google Scholar 
Fisher, D. O. Trajectories from extinction: where are missing mammals rediscovered?. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 20, 415–425 (2011).
Google Scholar 
Lino, A., Fonseca, C., Rojas, D., Fischer, E. & Pereira, M. J. R. A meta-analysis of the effects of habitat loss and fragmentation on genetic diversity in mammals. Mamm. Biol. 94, 69–76 (2019).
Google Scholar 
Vandergast, A. G., Bohonak, A. J., Weissman, D. B. & Fisher, R. N. Understanding the genetic effects of recent habitat fragmentation in the context of evolutionary history: Phylogeography and landscape genetics of a southern California endemic Jerusalem cricket (Orthoptera: Stenopelmatidae: Stenopelmatus). Mol. Ecol. 16, 977–992 (2007).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Young, A., Boyle, T. & Brown, T. The population genetic consequences of habitat fragmentation for plants. Trends Ecol. Evol. 11, 413–418 (1996).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Wilkins, J. F. & Wakeley, J. The coalescent in a continuous, finite, linear population. Genetics 161, 873–888 (2002).
Google Scholar 
Ringbauer, H., Coop, G. & Barton, N. H. Inferring recent demography from isolation by distance of long shared sequence blocks. Genetics 205, 1335–1351 (2017).
Google Scholar 
Bradburd, G. S. & Ralph, P. L. Spatial population genetics: It’s about time. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 50, 427–429 (2019).
Google Scholar 
Barton, N. H., Etheridge, A. M., Kelleher, J. & Véber, A. Inference in two dimensions: Allele frequencies versus lengths of shared sequence blocks. Theor. Popul. Biol. 87, 105–119 (2013).CAS 
MATH 

Google Scholar 
Aguillon, S. M. et al. Deconstructing isolation-by-distance: The genomic consequences of limited dispersal. PLoS Genet. 13, e1006911 (2017).
Google Scholar 
Blanco-Pastor, J. L., Fernández-Mazuecos, M. & Vargas, P. Past and future demographic dynamics of alpine species: Limited genetic consequences despite dramatic range contraction in a plant from the Spanish Sierra Nevada. Mol. Ecol. 22, 4177–4195 (2013).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Chen, N. et al. Allele frequency dynamics in a pedigreed natural population. PNAS 116, 2158–2164 (2019).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Exposito-Alonso, M., Booker, T. A., Czech, L., Fukami, T., Gillespie, L., Hateley, S. et al. Quantifying the scale of genetic diversity extinction in the Anthropocene. bioRxiv (2021).Keller, I. & Largiadèr, C. R. Recent habitat fragmentation caused by major roads leads to reduction of gene flow and loss of genetic variability in ground beetles. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 270, 417–423 (2003).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Chan, L. M. et al. Phylogeographic structure of the dunes sagebrush lizard, an endemic habitat specialist. PLoS ONE 15, 0238194 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Wang, I. J. & Bradburd, G. S. Isolation by environment. Mol. Ecol. 23, 5649–5662 (2014).
Google Scholar 
Cayuela, H. et al. Demographic and genetic approaches to study dispersal in wild animal populations: A methodological review. Mol. Ecol. 27, 3976–4010 (2018).
Google Scholar 
Battey, C. J., Ralph, P. L. & Kern, A. D. Space is the place: Effects of continuous spatial structure on analysis of population genetic data. Genetics 215, 193–214 (2020).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Stubbs, D. & Swingland, I. R. The ecology of a Mediterranean tortoise (Testudo hermanni): A declining population. Can. J. Zool. 63, 169–180 (1985).
Google Scholar 
Channell, R. The conservation value of peripheral populations: The supporting science. in Proceedings of the Species at Risk 2004 Pathways to Recovery Conference. 1–17. (Species at Risk 2004 Pathways to Recovery Conference Organizing Committee, 2004).Brown, J. H. On the relationship between abundance and distribution of species. Am. Nat. 124(2), 255–279 (1984).
Google Scholar 
Brown, J. H. Macroecology (University of Chicago Press, 1995).
Google Scholar 
Brown, J. H., Stevens, G. C. & Kaufman, D. M. The geographic range: Size, shape, boundaries, and internal structure. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 27(1), 597–623 (1996).
Google Scholar 
Sagarin, R. D. & Gaines, S. D. The ‘abundant centre’distribution: To what extent is it a biogeographical rule?. Ecol. Lett. 5, 137–147 (2002).
Google Scholar 
Eckert, C. G., Samis, K. E. & Lougheed, S. C. Genetic variation across species’ geographical ranges: The central-marginal hypothesis and beyond. Mol. Ecol. 17, 1170–1188 (2008).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Yackulic, C. B., Sanderson, E. W. & Uriarte, M. Anthropogenic and environmental drivers of modern range loss in large mammals. PNAS 108, 4024–4029 (2011).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Fitzgerald L.A., Walkup, D. Chyn, K. Buchholtz, E. Angeli, N. & Parker M. The future for reptiles: Advances and challenges in the Anthropocene. in Encyclopedia of the Anthropocene. (eds. Dellasala, D.A., & Goldstein, M.I.). 163–174 (Elsevier, 2018).Segelbacher, G., Höglund, J. & Storch, I. From connectivity to isolation: Genetic consequences of population fragmentation in capercaillie across Europe. Mol. Ecol. 12, 1773–1780 (2003).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Cegelski, C. C., Waits, L. P. & Anderson, N. J. Assessing population structure and gene flow in Montana wolverines (Gulo gulo) using assignment-based approaches. Mol. Ecol. 12, 2907–2918 (2003).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Proctor, M. F., McLellan, B. N., Strobeck, C. & Barclay, R. M. Genetic analysis reveals demographic fragmentation of grizzly bears yielding vulnerably small populations. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 272, 2409–2416 (2005).
Google Scholar 
Leavitt, D. J. & Fitzgerald, L. A. Disassembly of a dune–dwelling lizard community due to landscape fragmentation. Ecosphere 4, 97 (2013).
Google Scholar 
Fahrig, L. Effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 34, 487–515 (2003).
Google Scholar 
Rogan, J.E., & Lacher Jr., T.E. Impacts of habitat loss and fragmentation on terrestrial biodiversity. in Reference Modules in Earth Systems and Environmental Sciences. 1–18 (Elsevier, 2018).Hurtado, L. A., Santamaria, C. A. & Fitzgerald, L. A. Conservation genetics of the critically endangered St. Croix ground lizard (Ameiva polops Cope 1863). Conserv. Genet. 13, 665–679 (2012).
Google Scholar 
Lawton, J. H. Range, population abundance and conservation. Trends Ecol. Evol. 8, 409–413 (1993).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Purvis, A., Gittleman, J. L., Cowlishaw, G. & Mace, G. M. Predicting extinction risk in declining species. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 267, 1947–1952 (2000).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Cardillo, M. et al. The predictability of extinction: Biological and external correlates of decline in mammals. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 275, 1441–1448 (2008).
Google Scholar 
Templeton, A. R. Coadaptation and outbreeding depression. in Conservation Biology: The Science of Scarcity and Diversity. (ed. Soulé, M.E.). 105–116 (Sinauer, 1986). Lomolino, M. V. & Smith, G. A. Dynamic biogeography of prairie dog (Cynomys ludovicianus) towns near the edge of their range. J. Mammal. 82, 937–945 (2001).
Google Scholar 
Wright, S. Isolation by distance. Genetics 28, 114 (1943).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Maruyama, T. Rate of decrease of genetic variability in a two-dimensional continuous population of finite size. Genetics 4(1), 639–651 (1972).
Google Scholar 
Wright, S. Coefficients of inbreeding and relationship. Am. Nat. 645, 330–338 (1922).
Google Scholar 
Kelleher, J. & EtheridgeMcVean, A. M. G. Efficient coalescent simulation and genealogical analysis for large sample sizes. PLoS Comput. Biol. 12, e1004842 (2016).
Google Scholar 
R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. http://www.R-project.org/ (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2019).Greenstein, B. J. & Pandolfi, J. M. Escaping the heat: Range shifts of reef coral taxa in coastal Western Australia. Glob. Change Biol. 14, 513–528 (2008).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Wilcove, D. S. & Terborgh, J. W. Patterns of population decline in birds. Am. Birds 38, 10–13 (1984).
Google Scholar 
Gabelli, F. M. et al. Range contraction in the Pampas meadowlark Sturnella defilippii in the southern Pampas grasslands of Argentina. Oryx 38, 164–170 (2004).
Google Scholar 
Pomara, L. Y., LeDee, O. E., Martin, K. J. & Zuckerberg, B. Demographic consequences of climate change and land cover help explain a history of extirpations and range contraction in a declining snake species. Glob. Change Biol. 20, 2087–2099 (2014).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Towns, D. R. & Daugherty, C. H. Patterns of range contractions and extinctions in the New Zealand herpetofauna following human colonisation. N. Z. J. Zool. 21, 325–339 (1994).
Google Scholar 
Rudolph, D. C., Burgdorf, S. J., Schaefer, R. R., Conner, R. N. & Maxey, R. W. Status of Pituophis ruthveni (Louisiana pine snake). Southeast. Nat. 5(3), 463–472 (2006).
Google Scholar 
Russell, R. W., Lipps, G. J. Jr., Hecnar, S. J. & Haffner, G. D. Persistent organic pollutants in Blanchard’s cricket frogs (Acris crepitans blanchardi) from Ohio. Ohio J. Sci. 102, 119–122 (2002).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Fellers, G. M. & Drost, C. A. Disappearance of the Cascades frog Rana cascadae at the southern end of its range, California, USA. Biol. Cons. 65, 177–181 (1993).
Google Scholar 
Franco, A. M. et al. Impacts of climate warming and habitat loss on extinctions at species’ low-latitude range boundaries. Glob. Change Biol. 12, 1545–1553 (2006).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Stewart, J. A., Wright, D. H. & Heckman, K. A. Apparent climate-mediated loss and fragmentation of core habitat of the American pika in the Northern Sierra Nevada, California, USA. PLoS ONE 12, e0181834 (2017).
Google Scholar 
Rodríguez, A. & Delibes, M. Internal structure and patterns of contraction in the geographic range of the Iberian lynx. Ecography 25, 314–328 (2002).
Google Scholar 
Kattan, G. et al. Range fragmentation in the spectacled bear Tremarctos ornatus in the northern Andes. Oryx 38(2), 155–163 (2004).
Google Scholar 
Jones, S. J., Lima, F. P. & Wethey, D. S. Rising environmental temperatures and biogeography: poleward range contraction of the blue mussel, Mytilus edulis L., in the western Atlantic. J. Biogeogr. 37, 2243–2259 (2010).
Google Scholar 
Smale, D. A. & Wernberg, T. Extreme climatic event drives range contraction of a habitat-forming species. P. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 280, 20122829 (2013).
Google Scholar  More

Srivastava, R. K., Mequanint, F., Chakraborty, A., Panda, R. K. & Halder, D. Augmentation of maize yield by strategic adaptation to cope with climate change for a future period in Eastern India. J. Clean. Prod. 339, 130599 (2022).
Google Scholar 
Pooniya, V. et al. Six years of conservation agriculture and nutrient management in maize–mustard rotation: Impact on soil properties, system productivity and profitability. Field Crops Res. 260, 108002 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Tsimba, R., Edmeades, G. O., Millner, J. P. & Kemp, P. D. The effect of planting date on maize grain yields and yield components. Field Crops Res. 150, 135–144 (2013).
Google Scholar 
Maresma, A., Ballesta, A., Santiveri, F. & Lloveras, J. Sowing date affects maize development and yield in irrigated mediterranean environments. Agriculture 9(3), 67 (2019).
Google Scholar 
Srivastava, R. K., Panda, R. K., Chakraborty, A. & Halder, D. Enhancing grain yield, biomass and nitrogen use efficiency of maize by varying sowing dates and nitrogen rate under rainfed and irrigated conditions. Field Crops Res. 221, 339–349 (2018).
Google Scholar 
Van Roekel, R. J. & Coulter, J. A. Agronomic responses of corn hybrids to row width and plant density. Agronomy J. 104(3), 612–620 (2012).
Google Scholar 
Santiveri, F., Royo, C. & Romagosa, I. Growth and yield responses of spring and winter triticale cultivated under Mediterranean conditions. Eur. J. Agron. 20(3), 281–292 (2004).
Google Scholar 
Masoni, A., Ercoli, L., Mariotti, M. & Arduini, I. Post-anthesis accumulation and remobilization of dry matter, nitrogen and phosphorus in durum wheat as affected by soil type. Eur. J. Agron. 26(3), 179–186 (2007).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Yang, W., Peng, S., Dionisio-Sese, M. L., Laza, R. C. & Visperas, R. M. Grain filling duration, a crucial determinant of genotypic variation of grain yield in field-grown tropical irrigated rice. Field Crops Res. 105, 221–227 (2008).
Google Scholar 
Wei, H. et al. Comparisons of grain yield and nutrient accumulation and translocation in high-yielding japonica/indica hybrids, indica hybrids, and japonica conventional varieties. Field Crops Res. 204, 101–109 (2017).
Google Scholar 
Wu, H. et al. Effects of post-anthesis nitrogen uptake and translocation on photosynthetic production and rice yield. Sci. Rep. 8(1), 1–11 (2018).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Laza, M. R., Peng, S., Akita, S. & Saka, H. Contribution of biomass partitioning and translocation to grain yield under sub-optimum growing conditions in irrigated rice. Plant Prod. Sci. 6(1), 28–35 (2003).
Google Scholar 
Gao, H. et al. Intercropping modulates the accumulation and translocation of dry matter and nitrogen in maize and peanut. Field Crops Res. 284, 108561 (2022).
Google Scholar 
Yang, Y. et al. Solar radiation effects on dry matter accumulations and transfer in maize. Front. Plant Sci. 12, 1927 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Jamshidi, A. & Javanmard, H. R. Evaluation of barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) genotypes for salinity tolerance under field conditions using the stress indices. Ain Shams Eng. J. 9(4), 2093–2099 (2018).
Google Scholar 
Tyagi, B. S. et al. Identification of wheat cultivars for low nitrogen tolerance using multivariable screening approaches. Agronomy 10(3), 417 (2020).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Fischer, R. A. & Maurer, R. Drought resistance in spring wheat cultivars. I. Grain yield responses. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 29(5), 897–912 (1978).
Google Scholar 
Fernandez, G. C. Effective selection criteria for assessing plant stress tolerance. In Proceeding of the International Symposium on Adaptation of Vegetables and other Food Crops in Temperature and Water Stress, Aug. 13–16, Shanhua, Taiwan. 257–270 (1992).Bouslama, M. & Schapaugh, W. T. Jr. Stress tolerance in soybeans. I. Evaluation of three screening techniques for heat and drought tolerance 1. Crop sci. 24(5), 933–937 (1984).
Google Scholar 
Ciampitti, I. A. & Vyn, T. J. Grain nitrogen source changes over time in maize: A review. Crop Sci. 53(2), 366–377 (2013).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Chen, Y. et al. Characterization of the plant traits contributed to high grain yield and high grain nitrogen concentration in maize. Field Crops Res. 159, 1–9 (2014).
Google Scholar 
Mi, G. et al. Nitrogen uptake and remobilization in maize hybrids differing in leaf senescence. J. plant nutr. 26(1), 237–247 (2003).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Tollenaar, M. & Lee, E. A. Dissection of physiological processes underlying grain yield in maize by examining genetic improvement and heterosis. Maydica 51(2), 399 (2006).
Google Scholar 
Samonte, S. O. P. et al. Nitrogen utilization efficiency: Relationships with grain yield, grain protein, and yield-related traits in rice. Agronomy J. 98(1), 168–176 (2006).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Qiao, J., Yang, L., Yan, T., Xue, F. & Zhao, D. Nitrogen fertilizer reduction in rice production for two consecutive years in the Taihu Lake area. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 146(1), 103–112 (2012).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Marschner, P. Marschner’s Mineral Nutrition of Higher Plants 3rd edn. (Academic Press, 2012).
Google Scholar 
Ning, P., Li, S., Yu, P., Zhang, Y. & Li, C. Post-silking accumulation and partitioning of dry matter, nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium in maize varieties differing in leaf longevity. Field Crops Res. 144, 19–27 (2013).
Google Scholar 
Hawkesford, M. et al. Functions of macronutrients. In Marschners Mineral Nutrition of Higher Plants 3rd edn (ed. Marschner, P.) 178–189 (Academic Press, 2012).
Google Scholar 
Palta, J. A. et al. Large root systems: Are they useful in adapting wheat to dry environments?. Funct. Plant Biol. 38(5), 347–354 (2011).
Google Scholar 
Pooniya, V., Palta, J. A., Chen, Y., Delhaize, E. & Siddique, K. H. Impact of the TaMATE1B gene on above and below-ground growth of durum wheat grown on an acid and Al3+-toxic soil. Plant Soil 447(1), 73–84 (2020).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Bonelli, L. E., Monzon, J. P., Cerrudo, A., Rizzalli, R. H. & Andrade, F. H. Maize grain yield components and source-sink relationship as affected by the delay in sowing date. Field Crops Res. 198, 215–225 (2016).
Google Scholar 
Sorensen, I., Stone, P. & Rogers, B. Effect of sowing time on yield of a short and a long season maize hybrid. Proc. Agron. Soc. NZ 30, 63–66 (2000).
Google Scholar 
Tsimba, R., Edmeades, G. O., Millner, J. P. & Kemp, P. D. The effect of planting date on maize: Phenology, thermal time durations and growth rates in a cool temperate climate. Field Crops Res. 150, 145–155 (2013).
Google Scholar 
Zhou, B. et al. Maize kernel weight responses to sowing date-associated variation in weather conditions. Crop J. 5(1), 43–51 (2017).
Google Scholar 
Cirilo, A. G. & Andrade, F. H. Sowing date and maize productivity: I. Crop growth and dry matter partitioning. Crop Sci. 34(4), 1039–1043 (1994).
Google Scholar 
Shi, Y. et al. Tillage practices affect dry matter accumulation and grain yield in winter wheat in the North China Plain. Soil Till. Res. 160, 73–81 (2016).
Google Scholar 
He, P., Zhou, W. & Jin, J. Carbon and nitrogen metabolism related to grain formation in two different senescent types of maize. J. Plant Nutrit. 27(2), 295–311 (2004).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Pommel, B. et al. Carbon and nitrogen allocation and grain filling in three maize hybrids differing in leaf senescence. Eur. J. Agron. 24(3), 203–211 (2006).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Clarke, J. M., Campbell, C. A., Cutforth, H. W., DePauw, R. M. & Winkleman, G. E. Nitrogen and phosphorus uptake, translocation, and utilization efficiency of wheat in relation to environment and cultivar yield and protein levels. Can. J. Plant Sci. 70(4), 965–977 (1990).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Mardeh, A. S. S., Ahmadi, A., Poustini, K. & Mohammadi, V. Evaluation of drought resistance indices under various environmental conditions. Field Crops Res. 98(2–3), 222–229 (2006).
Google Scholar 
Naderi, A., Majidi-Harvan, E., Hashemi-Dezfoli, A., Rezaei, A. & Normohamadi, G. Analysis of efficiency of drought tolerance indices in crop plants and introduction of a new criteria. Seed Plant 15(4), 390–402 (1999).
Google Scholar 
Zeng, W. et al. Comparative proteomics analysis of the seedling root response of drought-sensitive and drought-tolerant maize varieties to drought stress. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 20(11), 2793 (2019).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Hajibabaei, M. & Azizi, F. Evaluation of drought tolerance indices in some new hybrids of corn. Electron. J. Crop Prod. 3, 139–155 (2011).
Google Scholar 
Zhao, J. et al. Yield and water use of drought-tolerant maize hybrids in a semiarid environment. Field Crops Res. 216, 1–9 (2018).
Google Scholar 
Fageria, N. K. Nitrogen harvest index and its association with crop yields. J. Plant Nutri. 37(6), 795–810 (2014).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Raghuram, N., Sachdev, M. S. & Abrol, Y. P. Towards an integrative understanding of reactive nitrogen. In Agricultural Nitrogen Use & Its Environmental Implications (eds Abrol, Y. P. et al.) 1–6 (I.K. International Publishing House Pvt. Ltd., 2007).
Google Scholar 
Baligar, V. C., Fageria, N. K. & He, Z. L. Nutrient use efficiency in plants. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 32(7–8), 921–950 (2001).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Foulkes, M. J. et al. Identifying traits to improve the nitrogen economy of wheat: Recent advances and future prospects. Field Crops Res. 114(3), 329–342 (2009).
Google Scholar 
Gaju, O. et al. Identification of traits to improve the nitrogen-use efficiency of wheat genotypes. Field Crops Res. 123(2), 139–152 (2011).
Google Scholar 
Ehdaie, B. A. H. M. A. N., Mohammadi, S. A. & Nouraein, M. QTLs for root traits at mid-tillering and for root and shoot traits at maturity in a RIL population of spring bread wheat grown under well-watered conditions. Euphytica 211(1), 17–38 (2016).
Google Scholar 
Piper, C. S. Soil and Plant Analysis (Adelaide University, 1950).
Google Scholar 
Subbiah, B. V. & Asija, G. L. A rapid method for the estimation of nitrogen in soil. Curr. Sci. 26, 259–260 (1956).
Google Scholar 
Olsen, S. R., Cole, C. V., Watanabe, F. S. & Dean, L. A. Estimation of Available Phosphorus in Soil by Extraction with Sodium Carbonate (USDA, 1954).
Google Scholar 
Hanway, J. J. & Heidel, H. Soil Analysis Methods as used in Iowa State College Soil Testing Laboratory, Bulletin 57 (Iowa State College of Agriculture, 1952).
Google Scholar 
Walkley, A. L. & Black, I. A. An examination of the Degtjareff method for determination of soil organic matter and a proposed modification of the chromic acid titration method. Soil Sci. 37, 29–38 (1934).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Ntanos, D. A. & Koutroubas, S. D. Dry matter and N accumulation and translocation for Indica and Japonica rice under Mediterranean conditions. Field Crops Res. 74, 93–101 (2002).
Google Scholar 
Prasad, R., Shivay, Y. S., Kumar, D., & Sharma, S. N. Learning by doing exercises in soil fertility (A practical manual for soil fertility). Division of Agronomy, Indian Agricultural Research Institute, India, (2006).Jiang, L. et al. Characterizing physiological N-use efficiency as influenced by nitrogen management in three rice cultivars. Field Crops Res. 88, 239–250 (2004).
Google Scholar 
Dai, X. et al. Managing the seeding rate to improve nitrogen-use efficiency of winter wheat. Field Crops Res. 154, 100–109 (2013).
Google Scholar 
Liu, W. et al. Root growth, water and nitrogen use efficiencies in winter wheat under different irrigation and nitrogen regimes in North China Plain. Front. Plant Sci. 9, 1798 (2018).
Google Scholar 
Gomez, K. A. & Gomez, A. A. Statistical Procedures for Agricultural Research 2nd edn, 180–209 (Wiley, 1984).
Google Scholar  More