Philippa Kaur

The experiment underlying the study provides a diversity gradient of 1–60 plant species, established in assemblages randomly chosen from a pool of species typical of Arrhenatheretum grasslands. Recently sown on fertile arable soil and maintained by weeding, this experiment is a highly artificial system that fails to meet the definition of semi-natural grasslands7. Four years after establishment, a management intensity gradient of one to four annual cuts and three fertilization levels was established in subplots randomly assigned to the 1–60-species plots. Data presented in this study were collected in the following year.Intensive management was thus imposed on plant species typical of Arrhenaterethum meadows, a plant community characterized by two annual cuts8. The potential effect size of increased management intensity is thus underestimated by applying the management to a plant community not adapted to it. More importantly, it is unlikely that the species-richness of high-diversity plots could be maintained under increased management intensity over longer periods. In fact, 22% of these subplots managed at very high intensity had to be excluded for missing or insufficient yield after only two years, indicating that their species did not persist under high defoliation frequency and fertilizer levels, even when competitors were excluded by weeding.While the discussion hardly addresses this crucial trade-off between management intensity and plant diversity, Schaub et al.6 do indicate that repeated resowing is likely to be necessary to maintain high diversity under increased management intensities. In contrast to permanent grasslands, whose species composition is shaped by site conditions and management, species selection in (re-)sown grasslands is a conscious choice. To be advantageous, mixtures have to show larger yields than the most productive monoculture, so-called transgressive overyielding. Transgressive overyielding is one of the reasons why mixtures, especially grass-clover mixtures, are frequently used in sown grasslands. A European-scale experiment demonstrated that four-species mixtures showed transgressive overyielding at a wide range of sites under intensive agricultural management9,10. Although Schaub et al.6 generally quantify the diversity effects in comparison to monocultures, they argue that grasslands with the high-diversity characteristic of semi-natural grasslands have benefits not only over monocultures but over low-diversity grasslands, such as the 1–8 species standard mixtures shown in Fig. 6 of their paper. However, their results fail to demonstrate that their high-diversity plots show any transgressive overyielding even over monocultures, not to speak of low-diversity mixtures. As species assemblages of the experiment are randomly drawn from the species pool, monocultures and low-diversity mixtures cannot be expected to include the most productive species or species combinations and thus cannot be used to assess transgressive overyielding. When transgressive overyielding was quantified for one- to eight-species plots of the same experiment under extensive management in 2003, it decreased with species number. While two-species mixtures showed a mean transgressive overyielding of 5%, eight-species mixtures were only 70% as productive as the corresponding best monoculture, on average11.Accordingly, the experimental design fails to capture the real trade-offs faced by grassland managers, either in permanent or in sown grassland. It cannot answer if high levels of diversity and the associated biodiversity benefits can be maintained under intensive management for a longer period than just a few years. Neither can it show a productivity benefit of high-diversity grassland assemblages compared to species-poor mixtures, or even monocultures, when in practice the sown species are deliberately chosen rather than randomly drawn from a species pool. While the underlying biodiversity experiment has made valuable contributions to our fundamental understanding of plant diversity effects on ecosystem functioning, it thus cannot be used to derive direct management recommendations for managed grassland. More

Study areaThis study was conducted using tree census data collected from 119 forest inventory plots (73 tropical, 46 subtropical) situated across a latitudinal range of 7.1°N (Colombia) to 27.8°S (Argentina), a longitudinal range of 79.5° to −63.8° W, and an elevation range of 500–3511 m asl (Fig. 1). The mean annual temperature (MAT) of plots ranged from 7.3 to 23.8 °C (mean = 16.7 ± 4.1 °C; mean ± SD) and mean annual precipitation (MAP) of the plots ranged from 608 to 4313 mm y−1 (mean = 1405.0 ± 623.9 mm y−1) (External Databases 1). The number of plots sampled in each country was: Argentina = 46, Bolivia = 26, Peru = 16, Ecuador = 21, and Colombia = 10 (Fig. 1). The 119 forest plots ranged in size from 0.32 to 1.28 ha and represent a cumulative sample area of 104.4 ha (horizontal areas corrected for slope) that containe more than 63,000 trees with a diameter at breast height (DBH, 1.3 m) ≥10 cm (External Database 1). Ninety-four of the plots (79.0%) were ≥1 ha in size. Neither secondary forests nor plantations were included. However, only seven of the plots (five in Argentina and two in Bolivia) were located in forests >100 km2 in extent41, which suggests that at least the edges and borders of some plots could have experienced some degree of disturbance or degradation. All plots were censused at least twice between 1991 and 2017 (census intervals ranged between 2 and 9 years).In each plot, we tagged, mapped, measured, and collected vouchers of all trees and palms (DBH ≥ 10 cm). DBH was measured 50 cm above buttresses or aerial roots when present (where the stem was cylindrical). During the second or subsequent set of censuses, DBH growth, recruitment, and mortality were recorded. In cases where the recorded DBH growth of the second census was less than −0.1 cm y−1 or greater than 7.5 cm y−1, the DBH of the second census was augmented/reduced in order to match these minimum/maximum values42. To homogenize and validate species names of palms and trees recorded in each country and plot, we submitted the combined list from all plots to the Taxonomic Name Resolution Service (TNRS; http://tnrs.iplantcollaborative.org/) version 3.0. Any species with an unassigned TNRS accepted name or with a taxonomic status of ‘no opinion’, ‘illegitimate’, or ‘invalid’ was manually reviewed. Families and genera were changed in accordance with the new species names. If a full species name was not provided or could not be found, the genus and/or family name from the original file was retained.Aboveground carbon stocksThe aboveground biomass (AGB) of each tree was estimated using the allometric equation proposed by Chave et al43., defined as: AGB = 0.0673 × (WD × DBH2 × H)0.976 where AGB (kg) is the estimated aboveground biomass, DBH (cm) is the diameter of the tree at breast height, H (m) is the estimated total height, and WD (g cm−3) is the stem wood density. To estimate WD, we assigned the WD values available in the literature44 to each species found in each plot. In cases where we could not assign a WD value at the species level, we used the average value at the genus- or family level. For unidentified individuals, we used the average WD value of all other species in the plot. Tree height (H) was estimated (see below) based on the heights measured on a subset of the individual stems in each plot using digital hypsometers or clinometers. The estimated AGB of each tree was then converted to units of aboveground carbon (AGC) by applying a conversion factor of 1 kg AGB = 0.456 kg C45. The AGC per ha was then determined by converting kg to Mg, summing the values for all trees in a plot, and extrapolating or interpolating to a sample area of 1 ha.Estimates of AGB and AGC are highly dependent on tree height. Unfortunately, tree height was difficult or impossible to measure on all stems due to physical and logistical constraints. Therefore, we estimated the height of each stem based on allometric relationships between DBH and tree height that we developed for each plot based on height and DBH measurements taken on a subset of individuals. Although the AGB/AGC estimates are only for trees with DBH ≥ 10, we used trees with DBH ≥ 5 cm to construct the H:DBH models when possible in order to be as comparable as possible with the existing pantropical H:DBH models46. In total, 44,442 trees had their heights measured in the field and were employed to construct the H:DBH models. The percentage of trees with direct field measurements of H (DBH ≥ 5 cm) in each country was: Argentina = 19%, Bolivia = 98%, Peru = 96%, Ecuador = 97%, and Colombia = 46%. In Argentina, 32 of 46 plots did not have any field measurements of H, while all plots in all other countries had field measurements of H for at least a subset of trees.We tested and compared the expected effects of using H:DBH models constructed using the local (plot), country, or pantropical (regional) level data. To select the best model to estimate H from DBH at the plot and country level, we used the function modelHD available in the BIOMASS package for R47. We chose the best allometric model from four candidate models (two log-log polynomial models, the three-parameter Weibull model, and a two-parameter Michaelis-Menten model (Supplementary Table 7)) by selecting the model with the lowest RSE and bias (Supplementary Table 8). At the regional level, we used a pantropical model46. The use of country and pantropical H:DBH allometries underestimates tree heights in the lowlands and overestimates tree heights in highlands, thereby homogenizing AGB estimates along elevational gradients10,48 (Supplementary Figs. 11, 12, 13). Using plot level allometries eliminates this problem. However, in the 32 plots in Argentina where we had no information about tree height, we used the country-level H:DBH model developed with the data available in the remaining 14 plots to estimate the height of each tree, which could have homogenized the AGC estimates along the Argentinian elevational gradient (Supplementary Figs. 11, 12, 13).Aboveground carbon dynamicsThe AGC dynamics of each plot was estimated from the annualized values of AGC mortality, AGC productivity (AGC change due to recruitment + growth), and AGC net change3. The calculations of the separate AGC dynamic components was performed as follows: (i) AGC mortality (Mg ha−1 y−1) = the sum of the AGC of all individuals that died between censuses divided by the time between measurements. (ii) AGC recruitment (Mg C ha−1 y−1) = the sum of the AGC of individuals that recruited into DBH ≥ 10 cm between censuses divided by the time between measurements. However, for each tree recruited (DBH ≥ 10 cm), we subtracted the corresponding AGC associated with a tree of 9.99 cm (i.e. just below the detection limit) in order to avoid overestimations of the overall increase in AGC due to recruitment49. (iii) AGC growth (Mg ha−1 y−1) = the sum of the increase in AGC of all individuals with DBH ≥ 10 cm that survived between censuses divided by the time between censuses. (iv) AGC net change (Mg ha−1 y−1) = the difference between AGC stock in the last census (AGCfinal) and AGC stock in the first census (AGC1) divided by the elapsed time (t; in years) between measurements [(AGC net change = AGCfinal − AGC1)/t]. We recognize that these methods exclude C stored in soils or in belowground tissues9,48; however, quantifying just aboveground C stocks and fluxes provides valuable information about the overall status of these forests as net C sinks or sources.ClimateClimate variables at each plot location were extracted from the CHELSA28 bioclimatic rasters at a resolution of 30-arcsec (~1 km2 at the equator). The climate variables extracted were: Mean Annual Temperature (MAT), Mean Diurnal Range (MDR), Isothermality (Isoth), Temperature Seasonality (TS), Maximum Temperature of Warmest Month (MaxTWarmM), Minimum Temperature of Coldest Month (MinTCM), Temperature Annual Range (TAR), Mean Temperature of Wettest Quarter (MeanTWarmQ), Mean Temperature of Driest Quarter (MeanTDQ), Mean Temperature of Warmest Quarter (MeanTWetQ), Mean Temperature of Coldest Quarter (MeanTCQ), Mean Annual Precipitation (MAP), Precipitation of Wettest Month (PWetM), Precipitation of Driest Month (PDM), Precipitation Seasonality (PS), Precipitation of Wettest Quarter (PWetQ), Precipitation of Driest Quarter (PDQ), Precipitation of Warmest Quarter (PWarmQ), Precipitation of Coldest Quarter (PCQ). We separated all variables associated with temperature (°C) from those associated with precipitation (mm y−1) and applied a Principal Component Analysis (PCA) to the 11 variables associated with temperature (PCAtemp) and a separate PCA to the eight variables associated with precipitation (PCAprec). The first two principal components of both PCAtemp and PCAprec (four PCA axes in total) were selected for use in subsequent analyses. Plot elevations were estimated based on their coordinates and the SRTM 1 ArcSec Global V3 (https://lta.cr.usgs.gov) 30 m resolution digital elevation model (DEM).PCAtemp1 (Supplementary Fig. 1a) explained 53.0% of the total variance of the temperature variables and had high loading from Isothermality and Maximum Temperature of Warmest Month, which was primarily associated with changes in elevation (r = −0.97, p  More

1.Fushimi, H. Production of juvenile marine finfish for stock enhancement in Japan. Aquaculture 200, 33–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0044-8486(01)00693-7 (2001).Article 

Google Scholar 
2.Masuda, R. & Tsukamoto, K. Stock enhancement in Japan: review and perspective. Bull. Mar. Sci. 62, 337–358. https://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/umrsmas/bullmar/1998/00000062/00000002/art00005 (1998).3.Sekino, M., Saitoh, K., Yamada, T., Hara, M. & Yamashita, Y. Genetic tagging of released Japanese flounder (Paralichthys olivaceus) based on polymorphic DNA markers. Aquaculture 244, 49–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2004.11.006 (2005).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
4.Arnold, W. S. Bivalve enhancement and restoration strategies in Florida, USA. Hydrobiologia 465, 7–19. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014596909319 (2001).Article 

Google Scholar 
5.Castell, L. L., Naviti, W. & Nguyen, F. Detectability of cryptic juvenile Trochus niloticus Linnaeus in stock enhancement experiments. Aquaculture 144, 91–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0044-8486(96)01320-8 (1996).Article 

Google Scholar 
6.McCormick, T. B., Herbinson, K., Mill, T. S. & Altick, J. A review of abalone seeding, possible significance and a new seeding device. Bull. Mar. Sci. 55, 680–693. https://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/umrsmas/bullmar/1994/00000055/f0020002/art00035 (1994).7.Zohar, Y. et al. The Chesapeake Bay blue crab (Callinectes sapidus): A multidisciplinary approach to responsible stock replenishment. Rev. Fish. Sci. 16, 24–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/10641260701681623 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
8.Funge-Smith, S., Briggs, M. & Miao, W. Regional Overview of Fisheries and Aquaculture in Asia and the Pacific 2012 (RAP Publication (FAO), 2012).
Google Scholar 
9.Mao, Y. et al. Chapter 4. Bivalve production in China. In Goods and Services of Marine Bivalves (eds Smaal, A. C. et al.) 51–72 (Springer, 2019).
Google Scholar 
10.Ran, Z. et al. Fatty acid and sterol changes in razor clam Sinonovacula constricta (Lamarck 1818) reared at different salinities. Aquaculture 473, 493–500. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2017.03.017 (2017).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
11.Suzuki, T., Inoue, K. & Ozawa, T. Environmental degradation in Ise and Mikawa Bays after 1960’s as viewed from intertidal molluscan community. Boll. Nagoya Univ. Museum 22, 31–64. https://doi.org/10.18999/bulnum.022.04 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
12.Nakamura, T. et al. Marine reservoir effect deduced from 14C dates on marine shells and terrestrial remains at archeological sites in Japan. Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. B 259, 453–459. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nimb.2007.01.186 (2007).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
13.Ministry of the Environment, Japan. Ariake Sea and Yatsushiro Sea Comprehensive Survey Evaluation Committee Report. https://www.env.go.jp/council/20ari-yatsu/rep061221/all.pdf (2006).14.Ito, S., Eguchi, T. & Kawahara, I. Rearing experiment on planktonic larvae of the JackKnife clam, Sinonovacula constricta. Boll. Saga Prefect. Ariake Fish. Res. Dev. Cent. 20, 49–53. https://agriknowledge.affrc.go.jp/RN/2010813185.pdf (2001).15.Ohkuma, H., Ymagachi, T., Kawahara, I., Eguchi, T. & Ito, S. A study on the development of techniques for mass production of seeds of jackknife clam, Sinonovacula constricta. Boll. Saga Prefect. Ariake Fish. Res. Dev. Cent. 22, 47–54. https://agriknowledge.affrc.go.jp/RN/2030813210.pdf (2004).16.Tsukuda, M. et al. Variation in the Distribution of the JackKnife Clam, Sinonovacula constricta, on the Muddy Tidal flat of Ariake Sound off Saga Prefecture. Boll. Saga Prefect. Ariake Fish. Res. Dev. Cent. 28, 47–49. https://agriknowledge.affrc.go.jp/RN/2010925685.pdf (2017).17.Holman, L. E., de la Garcia, S. D., Onoufriou, A., Hillestad, B. & Johnston, I. A. A workflow used to design low density SNP panels for parentage assignment and traceability in aquaculture species and its validation in Atlantic salmon. Aquaculture 476, 59–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2017.04.001 (2017).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
18.Li, Y. H. & Wang, H. P. Advances of genotyping-by-sequencing in fisheries and aquaculture. Rev. Fish Biol. Fish. 27, 535–559. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11160-017-9473-2 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
19.Robledo, D., Palaiokostas, C., Bargelloni, L., Martínez, P. & Houston, R. Applications of genotyping by sequencing in aquaculture breeding and genetics. Rev. Aquac 10, 670–682. https://doi.org/10.1111/raq.12193 (2018).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
20.You, X., Shan, X. & Shi, Q. Research advances in the genomics and applications for molecular breeding of aquaculture animals. Aquaculture 526, 735357. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2020.735357 (2020).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
21.Arthington, A. H. Ecological and genetic impacts of introduced and translocated freshwater fishes in Australia. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 48, 33–43. https://doi.org/10.1139/f91-302 (1991).Article 

Google Scholar 
22.Habtemariam, B. T., Arias, A., García-Vázquez, E. & Borrell, Y. J. Impacts of supplementation aquaculture on the genetic diversity of wild Ruditapes decussatus from northern Spain. Aquacult. Environ. Interact. 6, 241–254. https://doi.org/10.3354/aei00128 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
23.Williams, S. L. & Orth, R. J. Genetic diversity and structure of natural and transplanted eelgrass populations in the Chesapeake and Chincoteague Bays. Estuaries 21, 118–128. https://doi.org/10.2307/1352551 (1998).Article 

Google Scholar 
24.Yamakawa, A. Y. & Imai, H. PCR-RFLP typing reveals a new invasion of Taiwanese Meretrix (Bivalvia: Veneridae) to Japan. Aquat. Invasions 8, 407–415. https://doi.org/10.3391/ai.2013.8.4.04 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
25.Niu, D. H., Feng, B. B., Liu, D. B., Zhong, Y. M., Shen, H. D. & Li, J. L. Significant genetic differentiation among ten populations of the razor clam Sinonovacula constricta along the coast of china revealed by a microsatellite analysis. Zool. Stud. 51, 406–414. http://zoolstud.sinica.edu.tw/Journals/51.3/406.pdf. (2012).26.DeFaveri, J., Shikano, T., Ghani, N. I. A. & Merilä, J. Contrasting population structures in two sympatric fishes in the Baltic Sea basin. Mar. Biol. 159, 1659–1672. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00227-012-1951-4 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
27.Jeffery, N. W. et al. RAD sequencing reveals genomewide divergence between independent invasions of the European green crab (Carcinus maenas) in the Northwest Atlantic. Ecol. Evol. 7, 2513–2524. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.2872 (2017).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
28.Kato, D. et al. Evaluation of the population structure and phylogeography of the Japanese Genji firefly, Luciola cruciata, at the nuclear DNA level using RAD-Seq analysis. Sci. Rep. 10, 1533. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-58324-9 (2020).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
29.Yokota, M., Harada, Y. & Iizuka, M. Genetic drift in a hatchery and the maintenance of genetic diversity in hatchery-wild systems. Fish Sci. 69, 101–109. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1444-2906.2003.00593.x (2003).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
30.Harada, Y., Yokota, M. & Iizuka, M. Genetic risk of domestication in artificial fish stocking and its possible reduction. Popul. Ecol. 40, 311–324. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02763463 (1998).Article 

Google Scholar 
31.Etter, P. D., Bassham, S., Hohenlohe, P. A., Johnson, E. A. & Cresko, W. A. SNP discovery and genotyping for evolutionary genetics using RAD sequencing, in: Molecular methods for evolutionary genetics. Methods Mol. Biol. Humana Press 772, 157–178. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-61779-228-1_9 (2011).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
32.Rochette, N. C. & Catchen, J. M. Deriving genotypes from RAD-seq short-read data using stacks. Nat. Protoc. 12, 2640–2659. https://doi.org/10.1038/nprot.2017.123 (2017).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
33.Ran, Z. et al. Chromosome-level genome assembly of the razor clam Sinonovacula constricta (Lamarck, 1818). Mol. Ecol. Resour. 19, 1647–1658. https://doi.org/10.1111/1755-0998.13086 (2019).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
34.Li, H. Aligning sequence reads, clone sequences and assembly contigs with BWA-MEM. arXiv preprint arXiv: 1303.3997. https://arxiv.org/abs/1303.3997 (2013).35.Zheng, X. et al. A high-performance computing toolset for relatedness and principal component analysis of SNP data. Bioinformatics 28, 3326–3328. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/bts606 (2012).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
36.Danecek, P. et al. The variant call format and VCFtools. Bioinformatics 27, 2156–2158. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btr330 (2011).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
37.Alexander, D. H., Novembre, J. & Lange, K. Fast model-based estimation of ancestry in unrelated individuals. Genome Res. 19, 1655–1664. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19648217/ (2009).38.Purcell, S. et al. PLINK: A tool set for whole-genome association and population-based linkage analyses. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 81, 559–575. https://doi.org/10.1086/519795 (2007).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
39.Eklund, A. R package beeswarm: the bee swarm plot, an alternative to stripchart. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/beeswarm/beeswarm.pdf (2016).40.Stamatakis, A. RAxML version 8: A tool for phylogenetic analysis and post-analysis of large phylogenies. Bioinformatics 30, 1312–1313. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btu033 (2014).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
41.Chifman, J. & Kubatko, L. Quartet inference from SNP data under the coalescent model. Bioinformatics 30, 3317–3324. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btu530 (2014).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
42.Swofford, D. L. PAUP*. Phylogenetic analysis using parsimony (*and other methods). Version 4 (Sinauer Associates, 2002).
Google Scholar  More

Species threat abatement and restoration (STAR) metricWe developed and analysed a STAR metric that evaluates the potential benefit for threatened species of actions to reduce threats and restore habitat. Like the Red List Index7,8, STAR is derived from existing data in the IUCN Red List and is intended to help address an urgent need. STAR is spatially explicit, enabling identification of specific threat abatement and habitat restoration opportunities in particular places, which, if implemented, could reduce species extinction risk to levels that would exist without ongoing human impact. Abatement of threats to species encompasses reduction in threat intensity and/or action to mitigate the impacts of threats. Positive population and/or distribution changes, along with the resulting reduction of species extinction risk, have been documented in response to threat abatement13. STAR assumes that, for the great majority of species (see Supplementary Discussion), complete alleviation of threats would reduce extinction risk through halting the decline and/or permitting sufficient recovery in population and distribution, such that the species could be downlisted to the IUCN Red List category of Least Concern. We recognize that complete threat reduction is difficult, incremental conservation gains will need to be tracked at the species level14 and species recovery will vary across a species’ range14.For each species, a global STAR threat abatement (START) score is defined. This varies from zero for species of Least Concern to 100 for Near Threatened, 200 for Vulnerable, 300 for Endangered and 400 for Critically Endangered species (using established weighting ratios7,8). The sum of START values across all species represents the global threat abatement effort needed for all species to become Least Concern. START scores can be disaggregated spatially, based on the area of habitat (AOH) currently available for each species in a particular location (as a proxy for population proportion). This shows the potential contribution of conservation actions in that location to reducing the extinction risk for all species globally. The local START score can be further disaggregated by threat, based on the known contribution of each threat to the species’ risk of extinction (see Methods). This quantifies how actions that abate a specific threat at a particular location contribute to the global abatement of extinction risk for all species.The STAR metric also includes a complementary habitat restoration component to reflect the potential benefits to species of restoring lost habitat. During the United Nations Decade on Ecosystem Restoration (2021–2030), restoration efforts are likely to expand. The STAR restoration component applies a similar logic to the STAR threat abatement component, but for habitat that has been lost and is potentially restorable (that is, restorable AOH). The STAR restoration component does not make assumptions about the extent of habitat restoration required for individual species, but instead quantifies the potential contribution that habitat restoration activities could make to reducing species’ extinction risk. For a particular species at a particular location, the STAR restoration (STARR) score reflects the proportion that restorable habitat at the location represents of the global area of remaining habitat for that species. Importantly, a multiplier is applied to STARR scores to reflect the slower and lower success rate in delivering benefits to species from restored habitat compared with conserved existing habitat15. Again, STARR scores can be disaggregated by threat and summed across species within the location.STAR is intended to provide a metric to underpin the establishment of science-based targets as explicit contributions from individual actors towards the post-2020 biodiversity framework, by allowing assessment of actions and locations according to their potential ability to deliver towards international conservation targets. Individual spatially based START and STARR scores, for all species present in a particular location or country, represent a proportion of the global opportunity to reduce species’ extinction risk through threat abatement and restoration, respectively. For each species, the total START score could be achieved by the complete abatement of all threats in remaining habitat, or an equivalent value of the STAR metric can be achieved by a combination of threat abatement in the remaining habitat and restoration of lost habitat (with concomitant threat abatement therein). The metric can support establishment of science-based targets by a range of actors across spatial scales. By enabling governments and non-state actors to quantify their potential contributions, STAR, along with other tools, could facilitate achievement of global policy goals, notably the species component of the Sustainable Development Goals and the expected post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework.STAR uses existing publicly available datasets: species’ extinction risk categories and threats available from the IUCN Red List6 (or, for country endemics not yet assessed globally, from national red lists); and species’ AOH estimated using species’ ranges, habitat associations, and elevation limits, along with digital elevation models and current and historical land cover maps (here, we used backcast land cover maps of the distribution of habitat pre-human impact, as in ref. 16). To demonstrate the utility of STAR, we calculated global STAR scores for the groups of terrestrial vertebrate species that are comprehensively assessed on the IUCN Red List (that is, threatened and Near Threatened species of amphibians, birds and mammals globally; n = 5,359).Potential to reduce species extinction riskGlobally, the greatest contribution that could be made to reduce the extinction risk of these groups is tackling threats from annual and perennial non-timber crop production, which account for 24.5% of the global START score (Fig. 1). A further 16.4% is contributed by logging and wood harvesting. There are likely to be specific targets for reducing agriculture and forestry threats in the post-2020 framework3, and applying STAR quantifies the large potential contribution that mitigating these threats could make to the goal for species conservation. Appropriate activities to deliver on such targets range along a continuum from land sharing through to land sparing17.Fig. 1: Contribution to the global START score of different threats and the potential contribution of habitat restoration.The total global START score represents the global threat abatement effort needed for all Near Threatened and threatened (Vulnerable, Endangered and Critically Endangered, according to the IUCN Red List) amphibian, bird and mammal species to be reclassified as Least Concern. This score can be disaggregated by threat type, based on the known contribution of each threat to species’ risk of extinction. The STARR score quantifies the potential contribution that habitat restoration activities could make to reducing overall species’ extinction risk. The total START score could thus be achieved by the complete abatement of all threats in existing natural habitat, or through a combination of threat abatement in existing habitat and restoration of lost habitat (with concomitant threat abatement therein).Full size imageSTAR can be used in combination with existing policy and planning tools to quantify the potential contribution of action targets towards species conservation outcomes. The proposed post-2020 framework includes an action target for the protection of sites of particular importance to biodiversity3. Key Biodiversity Areas11, which include Important Bird and Biodiversity Areas18 and Alliance for Zero Extinction sites19, correspond to such sites. Key Biodiversity Areas so far cover 8.8% of the terrestrial surface (www.keybiodiversityareas.org; identification is ongoing), but already capture 47% of the global START score for the vertebrate groups analysed. They represent large proportions of some national START scores: >70% in Mexico and Venezuela and >50% in Madagascar, Ecuador, the Philippines and Tanzania.START scores can also support target setting at national and sub-national scales to help meet international policy goals. The control and eradication of invasive species forms one of the CBD’s proposed post-2020 action targets3. New Zealand has already set a Predator Free 2050 goal that aims to eradicate three invasive mammal species by 2050. New Zealand contributes 0.8% to the global START score for the three vertebrate groups included in this study. Achieving the Predator Free 2050 goal would contribute 30% of the total START score for New Zealand, amounting to 0.2% of the global START score.All countries contribute towards the global START score, but scores are highly skewed, with a few countries having high START scores and most having low scores for the vertebrate groups analysed (Fig. 2a and Extended Data Fig. 1). The highest-scoring countries are located in biodiverse regions with many threatened endemic species20: Indonesia contributes 7.1% of the global START score, Colombia 7.0%, Mexico 6.1%, Madagascar 6.0% and Brazil 5.2%. These top five countries contribute 31.3% of the global START score. In contrast, the lowest-scoring 88 countries together contribute only 1% of the global START score. This does not imply that these low-scoring countries have negligible species conservation responsibilities; the global decline in even common species indicates that all countries must act to reverse the degradation of nature and restore the diversity and abundance of species and integrity of ecosystems21, as well as preventing extinctions at a national scale. Moreover, most countries have a Red List Index22, or an equivalent, quantifying their progress or failure in reducing the global extinction risk of assessed species relative to their national responsibility for global species conservation. STAR provides a means to guide the reduction of extinction risk and so assist all countries in meeting national species conservation targets.Fig. 2: Global distribution of START and STARR scores.a,b, Global STAR scores for amphibians, birds and mammals at a 50-km grid cell resolution for START scores (a) and STARR scores (b). Each species has a global START score, weighted relative to their extinction risk. This global START score can be disaggregated spatially, based on the AOH currently available for each species in a particular location. The total START score per grid cell (a) is thus the sum of the individual species’ START scores per grid cell across all Near Threatened and threatened species of amphibians, birds and mammals included in this study. The global STARR score per species reflects the potential contribution that habitat restoration activities could make to reducing species’ extinction risk, and is spatially disaggregated based on the availability of restorable habitat. Thus, the total STARR score per grid cell (b) is the sum of the individual species’ STARR scores per grid cell across all species included in this study. For the legends in a and b, each range excludes the lower bound and includes the upper bound.Full size imageAt the global level, we estimated that an equivalent to 55.9% of the global START score for vertebrates could, theoretically, be achieved by restoring lost habitat within the current range (Fig. 1). Ecosystem restoration objectives have been identified in many national biodiversity strategies for the CBD, as well as in many countries’ commitments under the Bonn Challenge, and as part of Nationally Determined Contributions under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. The STAR metric has the potential to support restoration initiatives alongside species conservation targets by quantifying the potential benefit to particular species of restoring habitat in specific places23 (Fig. 2b). Restoration may be particularly important for some species, including those assessed under Red List sub-criteria D/D1 (with a very small population) or Bac (with a small range with severe fragmentation, plus extreme fluctuations). For species uniquely assessed under these criteria (2.8% of those included in this study), threat abatement alone is unlikely to eliminate extinction risk, so this might need to be complemented by restoration in order to achieve Least Concern status (see Supplementary Discussion). Moreover, depending on habitat loss and threat type, restoration of habitat may be beneficial for a larger proportion of threatened species.Application of STAR at the landscape scaleWe tested the landscape-scale application of the STAR metric in the southern part of Bukit Tigapuluh landscape, in central Sumatra, Indonesia (Fig. 3a). The Bukit Tigapuluh Sustainable Landscape and Livelihoods Project is a sustainable commercial rubber initiative. The study area (approximately 88,000 ha) includes a 5-km buffer (which is set aside to support local livelihoods, wildlife conservation areas and forest protection and restoration) and two ecosystem restoration areas (which form a conservation management zone that protects the Bukit Tigapuluh National Park from encroachment).Fig. 3: STAR results for the Bukit Tigapuluh Sustainable Landscape and Livelihoods Project.The Bukit Tigapuluh Sustainable Landscape and Livelihoods Project is a sustainable commercial rubber initiative. The study area (approximately 88,000 ha) includes a 5-km buffer, which is set aside to support local livelihoods, wildlife conservation areas and forest protection and restoration, and two ecosystem restoration areas, which form a conservation management zone that protects the Bukit Tigapuluh National Park from encroachment. a, Mapped START scores in areas with remaining forest (green) and STARR scores in areas where forest has been lost (purple) at the 30-m grid cell resolution. b, START scores per threat for the top five highest-scoring threats across the study area (the concession, 5-km buffer and ecosystem restoration areas combined).Full size imageThe total START score for the study area represents 0.2% of the START score for Sumatra, 0.04% of the START score for Indonesia and 0.003% of the global START. The major threats are from annual and perennial non-timber crops, logging and wood harvesting, and the collection of terrestrial animals (Fig. 3b). The proximate causes of these pressures in the project area are rubber cultivation, oil palm cultivation, industrial logging, subsistence wood cutting and hunting. STAR analysis shows that areas with the greatest potential to contribute to species conservation through threat mitigation are in remaining natural habitat close to the national park, with a small area of high potential also to the west, where the relatively small distribution of the orbiculus leaf-nosed bat (Hipposideros orbiculus) overlaps the site (Fig. 3a). Additionally, due to recent forest loss, 47% of the START score for the study area could be achieved through habitat restoration (that is, STARR). Investment in these management actions has the potential to deliver these quantified contributions to national and global biodiversity targets.Operationalization and future developmentThe STAR metric makes use of the best available data, producing results that are relevant to policy and practice. However, there is scope for future refinement as the underlying data improve. Here, the STAR metric covers amphibians, birds and mammals globally, constituting a well-studied but small proportion of taxonomic diversity (see Extended Data Figs. 2 and 3 for variation among taxa). STAR can be expanded to other taxonomic groups, including freshwater and marine species, as data become available (reptiles, cacti, cycads, conifers, freshwater fish and reef-building corals are among the groups imminently available for incorporation). Global application of STAR will require comprehensive assessment of taxonomic groups, testing of the transferability of the STAR metric assumptions among taxa as Red List coverage expands, and further development of methods to calculate AOH. AOH calculation does not currently capture spatial variation in species’ population density, which will be important for many species14; such data have not been gathered on a global scale yet and could be incorporated as available.The completeness of threat data in the IUCN Red List is uneven but is continually improving. The STAR metric does not currently reflect spatial variation in threat magnitude within species’ ranges; more broadly, there is a lack of information on the spatial distribution of threats24. Most species included in this study have relatively small ranges; the total current AOH is More

Acuna R, Padilla BE, Florez-Ramos CP, Rubio JD, Herrera JC, Benavides P et al. (2012) Adaptive horizontal transfer of a bacterial gene to an invasive insect pest of coffee. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 109(11):4197–4202CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Aoyama K, Watabe M, Nakaki T (2008) Regulation of neuronal glutathione synthesis. J Pharm Sci 108(3):227–238CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Arias M, Meichanetzoglou A, Elias M, Rosser N, de-Silva DL, Nay B et al. (2016) Variation in cyanogenic compounds concentration within a Heliconius butterfly community: does mimicry explain everything? BMC Evol Biol 16(1):272PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Baloch MN, Fan JY, Haseeb M, Zhang RZ (2020) Mapping potential distribution of Spodoptera frugiperda (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in central Asia. Insects 11(3):172PubMed Central 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Barbehenn RV, Kochmanski J, Menachem B, Poirier LM (2013a) Allocation of cysteine for glutathione production in caterpillars with different antioxidant defense strategies: a comparison of Lymantria dispar and Malacosoma disstria. Arch Insect Biochem 84(2):90–103CAS 

Google Scholar 
Barbehenn RV, Niewiadomski J, Kochmanski J (2013b) Importance of protein quality versus quantity in alternative host plants for a leaf-feeding insect. Oecologia 173(1):1–12PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Bogicevic B, Berthoud H, Portmann R, Meile L, Irmler S (2012) CysK from Lactobacillus casei encodes a protein with O-acetylserine sulfhydrylase and cysteine desulfurization activity. Appl Microbiol Biot 94(5):1209–1220CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Bonner ER, Cahoon RE, Knapke SM, Jez JM (2005) Molecular basis of cysteine biosynthesis in plants: structural and functional analysis of O-acetylserine sulfhydrylase from Arabidopsis thaliana. J Biol Chem 280(46):38803–38813CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Boto L (2014) Horizontal gene transfer in the acquisition of novel traits by metazoans. Proc Biol Sci 281(1777):20131834
Google Scholar 
Brown ES, Dewhurst CF (2009) The genus Spodoptera (Lepidoptera, Noctuidae) in Africa and the Near East. Bull Entomological Res 65(2):221–262Article 

Google Scholar 
Budde MW, Roth MB (2011) The response of Caenorhabditis elegans to hydrogen sulfide and hydrogen cyanide. Genetics 189(2):521–532CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Burkhard P, Rao GS, Hohenester E, Schnackerz KD, Cook PF, Jansonius JN (1998) Three-dimensional structure of O-acetylserine sulfhydrylase from Salmonella typhimurium. J Mol Biol 283(1):121–133CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Dai X, Li R, Li X, Liang Y, Gao Y, Xu Y et al. (2019) Gene duplication and subsequent functional diversification of sucrose hydrolase in Papilio xuthus. Insect Mol Biol 28(6):862–872CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Daimon T, Katsuma S, Iwanaga M, Kang WK, Shimada T (2005) The BmChi-h gene, a bacterial-type chitinase gene of Bombyx mori, encodes a functional exochitinase that plays a role in the chitin degradation during the molting process. Insect Biochem Mol Biol 35(10):1112–1123CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Daimon T, Taguchi T, Meng Y, Katsuma S, Mita K, Shimada T (2008) Beta-fructofuranosidase genes of the silkworm, Bombyx mori – Insights into enzymatic adaptation of B. mori to toxic alkaloids in mulberry latex. J Biol Chem 283(22):15271–15279CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Danchin EG, Rosso MN, Vieira P, de Almeida-Engler J, Coutinho PM, Henrissat B et al. (2010) Multiple lateral gene transfers and duplications have promoted plant parasitism ability in nematodes. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 107(41):17651–17656CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Darriba D, Taboada GL, Doallo R, Posada D (2011) ProtTest 3: fast selection of best-fit models of protein evolution. Bioinformatics 27(8):1164–1165CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Doxey AC, Yaish MWF, Moffatt BA, Griffith M, McConkey BJ (2007) Functional divergence in the Arabidopsis beta-1,3-glucanase gene family inferred by phylogenetic reconstruction of expression states. Mol Biol Evol 24(4):1045–1055CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Eddy SR (2011) Accelerated profile HMM searches. PLoS Comput Biol 7(10):e1002195CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Edgar RC (2004) MUSCLE: a multiple sequence alignment method with reduced time and space complexity. Bmc Bioinforma 5:1–19Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Fan X, Qiu H, Han W, Wang Y, Xu D, Zhang X et al. (2020) Phytoplankton pangenome reveals extensive prokaryotic horizontal gene transfer of diverse functions. Sci Adv 6(18):eaba0111CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Farre D, Alba MM (2010) Heterogeneous patterns of gene-expression diversification in mammalian gene duplicates. Mol Biol Evol 27(2):325–335CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Feldman-Salit A, Wirtz M, Hell R, Wade RC (2009) A mechanistic model of the cysteine synthase complex. J Mol Biol 386(1):37–59CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Force A, Lynch M, Pickett FB, Amores A, Yan YL, Postlethwait J (1999) Preservation of duplicate genes by complementary, degenerative mutations. Genetics 151(4):1531–1545CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Gaitonde MK (1967) A spectrophotometric method for direct determination of cysteine in presence of other naturally occurring amino acids. Biochem J 104(2):627–633CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Gan Q, Zhang XW, Zhang DB, Shi L, Zhou Y, Sun TT et al. (2018) BmSUC1 is essential for glycometabolism modulation in the silkworm, Bombyx mori. BBA-Gene Regul Mech 1861(6):543–553CAS 

Google Scholar 
Ganko EW, Meyers BC, Vision TJ (2007) Divergence in expression between duplicated genes in Arabidopsis. Mol Biol Evol 24(10):2298–2309CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Gao Y, Liu YC, Jia SZ, Liang YT, Tang Y, Xu YS et al. (2020) Imaginal disc growth factor maintains cuticle structure and controls melanization in the spot pattern formation of Bombyx mori. PLoS Genet 16(9):e1008980CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Goldsmith MR, Shimada T, Abe H (2005) The genetics and genomics of the silkworm, Bombyx mori. Annu Rev Entomol 50:71–100CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Gu X, Zhang ZQ, Huang W (2005) Rapid evolution of expression and regulatory divergences after yeast gene duplication. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 102(3):707–712CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Gu ZL, Nicolae D, Lu HHS, Li WH (2002) Rapid divergence in expression between duplicate genes inferred from microarray data. Trends Genet 18(12):609–613CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Helmkampf M, Cash E, Gadau J (2015) Evolution of the insect desaturase gene family with an emphasis on social Hymenoptera. Mol Biol Evol 32(2):456–471PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Hendrickson HR, Conn EE (1969) Cyanide metabolism in higher plants. IV. Purification and properties of the beta-cyanolanine synthase of blue lupine. J Biol Chem 244(10):2632–2640CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Herfurth AM, van Ohlen M, Wittstock U (2017) Beta-cyanoalanine synthases and their possible role in Pierid host plant adaptation. Insects 8(2):62PubMed Central 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Husnik F, McCutcheon JP (2018) Functional horizontal gene transfer from bacteria to eukaryotes. Nat Rev Microbiol 16(2):67–79CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Jeschke V, Gershenzon J, Vassao DG (2016) A mode of action of glucosinolate-derived isothiocyanates: detoxification depletes glutathione and cysteine levels with ramifications on protein metabolism in Spodoptera littoralis. Insect Biochem Molec 71:37–48CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Jiggins FM, Hurst GD (2011) Microbiology. Rapid insect evolution by symbiont transfer. Science 332(6026):185–186CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Koonin EV, Makarova KS, Aravind L (2001) Horizontal gene transfer in prokaryotes: quantification and classification. Annu Rev Microbiol 55:709–742CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Kumar S, Stecher G, Tamura K (2016) MEGA7: molecular evolutionary genetics analysis version 7.0 for bigger datasets. Mol Biol Evol 33(7):1870–1874CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Lai KW, Yau CP, Tse YC, Jiang LW, Yip WK (2009) Heterologous expression analyses of rice OsCAS in Arabidopsis and in yeast provide evidence for its roles in cyanide detoxification rather than in cysteine synthesis in vivo. J Exp Bot 60(3):993–1008CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Lee BS, Huang JS, Jayathilaka LP, Lee J, Gupta S (2016) Antibody production with synthetic peptides. Methods Mol Biol 1474:25–47CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Lee HL, Irish VF (2011) Gene duplication and loss in a MADS box gene transcription factor circuit. Mol Biol Evol 28(12):3367–3380CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Leite DJ, Baudouin-Gonzalez L, Iwasaki-Yokozawa S, Lozano-Fernandez J, Turetzek N, Akiyama-Oda Y et al. (2018) Homeobox gene duplication and divergence in arachnids. Mol Biol Evol 35(9):2240–2253CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Li ZW, Shen YH, Xiang ZH, Zhang Z (2011) Pathogen-origin horizontally transferred genes contribute to the evolution of lepidopteran insects. Bmc Evolut Biol 11(1):356CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Liu HJ, Tang ZX, Han XM, Yang ZL, Zhang FM, Yang HL et al. (2015) Divergence in enzymatic activities in the soybean GST supergene family provides new insight into the evolutionary dynamics of whole-genome duplicates. Mol Biol Evol 32(11):2844–2859CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Lunn JE, Droux M, Martin J, Douce R (1990) Localization of atp sulfurylase and O-acetylserine(Thiol)lyase in spinach leaves. Plant Physiol 94(3):1345–1352CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Lynch M, Force A (2000) The probability of duplicate gene preservation by subfunctionalization. Genetics 154(1):459–473CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Nikoh N, McCutcheon JP, Kudo T, Miyagishima S, Moran NA, Nakabachi A (2010) Bacterial genes in the aphid genome: absence of functional gene transfer from Buchnera to its host. Plos Genet 6(2):e1000827PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Novakova E, Moran NA (2012) Diversification of genes for carotenoid biosynthesis in aphids following an ancient transfer from a fungus. Mol Biol Evol 29(1):313–323CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Ochman H, Lawrence JG, Groisman EA (2000) Lateral gene transfer and the nature of bacterial innovation. Nature 405(6784):299–304CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Pallen MJ, Wren BW (2007) Bacterial pathogenomics. Nature 449(7164):835–842CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Polz MF, Alm EJ, Hanage WP (2013) Horizontal gene transfer and the evolution of bacterial and archaeal population structure. Trends Genet 29(3):170–175CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Rane RV, Walsh TK, Pearce SL, Jermiin LS, Gordon KH, Richards S et al. (2016) Are feeding preferences and insecticide resistance associated with the size of detoxifying enzyme families in insect herbivores? Curr Opin Insect Sci 13:70–76PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Schramm K, Vassao DG, Reichelt M, Gershenzon J, Wittstock U (2012) Metabolism of glucosinolate-derived isothiocyanates to glutathione conjugates in generalist lepidopteran herbivores. Insect Biochem Molec 42(3):174–182CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Stauber EJ, Kuczka P, van Ohlen M, Vogt B, Janowitz T, Piotrowski M et al. (2012) Turning the ‘mustard oil bomb’ into a ‘cyanide bomb’: aromatic glucosinolate metabolism in a specialist insect herbivore. Plos One 7(4):e35545CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Sun BF, Xiao JH, He SM, Liu L, Murphy RW, Huang DW (2013) Multiple ancient horizontal gene transfers and duplications in lepidopteran species. Insect Mol Biol 22(1):72–87CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Suzuki K, Moriguchi K, Yamamoto S (2015) Horizontal DNA transfer from bacteria to eukaryotes and a lesson from experimental transfers. Res Microbiol 166(10):753–763CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Van Ohlen M, Herfurth AM, Kerbstadt H, Wittstock U (2016) Cyanide detoxification in an insect herbivore: molecular identification of beta-cyanoalanine synthases from Pieris rapae. Insect Biochem Molec 70:99–110CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Wada M, Awano N, Yamazawa H, Takagi H, Nakamori S (2004) Purification and characterization of O-acetylserine sulfhydrylase of Corynebacterium glutamicum. Biosci Biotech Bioch 68(7):1581–1583CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Wadleigh RW, Yu SJ (1988) Detoxification of isothiocyanate allelochemicals by glutathione transferase in three lepidopterous species. J Chem Ecol 14(4):1279–1288CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Wagner A (2002) Asymmetric functional divergence of duplicate genes in yeast. Mol Biol Evol 19(10):1760–1768CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Wybouw N, Dermauw W, Tirry L, Stevens C, Grbic M, Feyereisen R et al. (2014) A gene horizontally transferred from bacteria protects arthropods from host plant cyanide poisoning. Elife 3:e02365PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Wybouw N, Pauchet Y, Heckel DG, Van Leeuwen T (2016) Horizontal gene transfer contributes to the evolution of arthropod herbivory. Genome Biol Evol 8(6):1785–1801CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Yamaguchi Y, Nakamura T, Kusano T, Sano H (2000) Three arabidopsis genes encoding proteins with differential activities for cysteine synthase and beta-cyanoalanine synthase. Plant Cell Physiol 41(4):465–476CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Yi H, Juergens M, Jez JM (2012) Structure of soybean beta-cyanoalanine synthase and the molecular basis for cyanide detoxification in plants. Plant Cell 24(6):2696–2706CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Zhou YY, Li XT, Katsuma S, Xu YS, Shi LG, Shimada T et al. (2019) Duplication and diversification of trehalase confers evolutionary advantages on lepidopteran insects. Mol Ecol 28(24):5282–5298CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Zhu B, Lou MM, Xie GL, Zhang GQ, Zhou XP, Li B et al. (2011) Horizontal gene transfer in silkworm, Bombyx mori. Bmc Genomics 12:248PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar  More

1.Ceballos, G. et al. Accelerated modern human–induced species losses: entering the sixth mass extinction. Sci. Adv. 1, e1400253 (2015).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
2.Baillie, J. E. ., Hilton-Taylor, C. & Stuart, S. N. 2004 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. A Global Species Assessment. (2004).3.Hughes, A. R. & Stachowicz, J. J. Genetic diversity enhances the resistance of a seagrass ecosystem to disturbance. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 101, 8998–9002 (2004).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
4.Cowen, R. K. Scaling of connectivity in marine populations. Science 311, 522–527 (2006).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
5.Ronce, O. How does it feel to be like a rolling stone? Ten questions about dispersal evolution. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 38, 231–253 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
6.Cowen, R. K. & Sponaugle, S. Larval dispersal and marine population connectivity. Ann. Rev. Mar. Sci. 1, 443–466 (2009).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
7.White, J. W. et al. Connectivity, dispersal, and recruitment. Oceanography 32, 50–59 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
8.Munday, P. L. et al. Climate change and coral reef connectivity. Coral Reefs 28, 379–395 (2009).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
9.Saunders, M. I. et al. Human impacts on connectivity in marine and freshwater ecosystems assessed using graph theory: A review. Mar. Freshw. Res. 67, 277 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
10.Peyran, C., Morage, T., Nebot-Colomer, E., Iwankow, G. & Planes, S. Unexpected residual habitats raise hope for the survival of the over the edge of extinction fan mussel, Pinna nobilis, along the Occitan coast (north-western Mediterranean Sea) (2020).11.De Gaulejac, B. Mise en évidence de l’hermaphrodisme successif à maturation asynchrone de Pinna nobilis. Biol. Pathol. Anim. 1, 99–103 (1995).
Google Scholar 
12.Butler, A., Vicente, N. & de Gaulejac, B. Ecology of the pterioid bivalves Pinna bicolor Gmelin and Pinna nobilis L. Mar. Life 3, 37–45 (1993).
Google Scholar 
13.Trigos, S., Vicente, N., Prado, P. & Espinós, F. J. Adult spawning and early larval development of the endangered bivalve Pinna nobilis. Aquaculture 483, 102–110 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
14.Öndes, F., Kaiser, M. J. & Güçlüsoy, H. Human impacts on the endangered fan mussel, Pinna nobilis. Aquat. Conserv. Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 30, 31–41 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
15.IOPR. Premier séminaire international sur la grande nacre de Méditerranée : Pinna nobilis. Mém. Inst. Océanogr. Paul Ricard 134 (2003).16.Katsares, V., Tsiora, A., Galinou-Mitsoudi, S. & Imsiridou, A. Genetic structure of the endangered species Pinna nobilis (Mollusca: Bivalvia) inferred from mtDNA sequences. Biologia 63, 412–417 (2008).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
17.Rabaoui, L. et al. Genetic variation among populations of the endangered fan mussel Pinna nobilis (Mollusca: Bivalvia) along the Tunisian coastline. Hydrobiologia 678, 99–111 (2011).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
18.Sanna, D. et al. Mitochondrial DNA reveals genetic structuring of Pinna nobilis across the mediterranean sea. PLoS ONE 8, e67372 (2013).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
19.González-Wangüemert, M. et al. Gene pool and connectivity patterns of Pinna nobilis in the Balearic Islands (Spain, Western Mediterranean Sea): Implications for its conservation through restocking. Aquat. Conserv. Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 29, 175–188 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
20.Wesselmann, M. et al. Genetic and oceanographic tools reveal high population connectivity and diversity in the endangered pen shell Pinna nobilis. Sci. Rep. 8, 4770 (2018).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
21.Sanna, D. et al. New mitochondrial and nuclear primers for the Mediterranean marine bivalve Pinna nobilis. Mediterr. Mar. Sci. 15, 416 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
22.Catanese, G. et al. Haplosporidium pinnae sp. nov., a haplosporidan parasite associated with mass mortalities of the fan mussel, Pinna nobilis, in the Western Mediterranean Sea. J. Invertebr. Pathol. 157, 9–24 (2018).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
23.Scarpa, F. et al. Multiple non-species-specific pathogens possibly triggered the mass mortality in Pinna nobilis. Life 10, 238 (2020).CAS 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
24.Grau, A. et al. Wide-geographic and long-term analysis of the role of pathogens in the decline of Pinna nobilis to critically endangered species. (2021).25.Vázquez-Luis, M. et al. Pinna nobilis: A mass mortality event in Western Mediterranean Sea. Front. Mar. Sci. 4, 1–6 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
26.Cabanellas-Reboredo, M. et al. Tracking a mass mortality outbreak of pen shell Pinna nobilis populations: A collaborative effort of scientists and citizens. Sci. Rep. 9, 13355 (2019).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
27.García-March, J. R. et al. Can we save a marine species affected by a highly infective, highly lethal, waterborne disease from extinction?. Biol. Conserv. 243, 108498 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
28.Kersting, D. et al. Pinna nobilis. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2019. (2019). https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2019-3.RLTS.T160075998A160081499.en29.Ifremer. Réseau de Suivi Lagunaire du Languedoc-Roussillon. (2014).30.García-March, J. R., García-Carrascosa, A. M. & Pena, Á. L. In situ measurement of Pinna nobilis shells for age and growth studies: A new device. Mar. Ecol. 23, 207–217 (2002).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
31.De Gaulejac, B. Etude écophysiologique du mollusque bivalve méditerranéen Pinna nobilis L. reproduction; croissance; respiration. (1993).32.Peyran, C., Planes, S., Tolou, N., Iwankow, G. & Boissin, E. Development of 26 highly polymorphic microsatellite markers for the highly endangered fan mussel Pinna nobilis and cross-species amplification. Mol. Biol. Rep. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11033-020-05338-1 (2020).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
33.González-Wangüemert, M. et al. Highly polymorphic microsatellite markers for the Mediterranean endemic fan mussel Pinna nobilis. Mediterr. Mar. Sci. 16, 31 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
34.Van Oosterhout, C., Hutchinson, W. F., Wills, D. P. M. & Shipley, P. micro-checker: software for identifying and correcting genotyping errors in microsatellite data. Mol. Ecol. Notes 4, 535–538 (2004).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
35.Peakall, R. & Smouse, P. E. GenAlEx 65: Genetic analysis in Excel. Population genetic software for teaching and research: An update. Bioinformatics 28, 2537–2539 (2012).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
36.Szpiech, Z. A., Jakobsson, M. & Rosenberg, N. A. ADZE: A rarefaction approach for counting alleles private to combinations of populations. Bioinformatics 24, 2498–2504 (2008).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
37.Rousset, F. genepop’007: A complete re-implementation of the genepop software for Windows and Linux. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 8, 103–106 (2008).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
38.Weir, B. S. & Cockerham, C. C. Estimating F-statistics for the analysis of population structure. Evolution 38, 1358 (1984).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
39.Belkhir, K., Borsa, P., Chikhi, L., Raufaste, N. & Bonhomme, F. GENETIX 4.05, Population genetics software for Windows TM. Université de Montpellier II (2004).40.Robertson, A. & Hill, W. G. Deviations from Hardy–Weinberg proportions: Sampling variances and use in estimation of inbreeding coefficients. Genetics 107, 703–718 (1984).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
41.Raufaste, N. & Bonhomme, F. Properties of bias and variance of two multiallelic estimators of FST. Theor. Popul. Biol. 57, 285–296 (2000).CAS 
PubMed 
MATH 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
42.Rice, W. R. Analyzing tables of statistical tests. Evolution 43, 223–225 (1989).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
43.R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. (2018).44.Excoffier, L. & Lischer, H. E. L. Arlequin suite ver 35: A new series of programs to perform population genetics analyses under Linux and Windows. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 10, 564–567 (2010).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
45.Pritchard, J. K., Stephens, M. & Donnelly, P. Inference of Population Structure Using Multilocus Genotype Data. (2000).46.Earl, D. A. & VonHoldt, B. M. STRUCTURE HARVESTER: A website and program for visualizing STRUCTURE output and implementing the Evanno method. Conserv. Genet. Resour. 4, 359–361 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
47.Evanno, G., Regnaut, S. & Goudet, J. Detecting the number of clusters of individuals using the software structure: A simulation study. Mol. Ecol. 14, 2611–2620 (2005).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
48.Puechmaille, S. J. The program STRUCTURE does not reliably recover the correct population structure when sampling is uneven: Subsampling and new estimators alleviate the problem. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 16, 608–627 (2016).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
49.Li, Y.-L. & Liu, J.-X. StructureSelector: A web-based software to select and visualize the optimal number of clusters using multiple methods. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 18, 176–177 (2018).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
50.Paradis, E. & Schliep, K. ape 5.0: An environment for modern phylogenetics and evolutionary analyses in R. Bioinformatics 35, 526–528 (2019).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
51.Queller, D. C. & Goodnight, K. F. Estimating relatedness using genetic markers. Evolution 43, 258 (1989).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
52.Kraemer, P. & Gerlach, G. Demerelate: Calculating interindividual relatedness for kinship analysis based on codominant diploid genetic markers using R. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 17, 1371–1377 (2017).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
53.Hare, M. P., Karl, S. A. & Avise, J. C. Anonymous nuclear DNA markers in the American oyster and their implications for the heterozygote deficiency phenomenon in marine bivalves. Mol. Biol. Evol. 13, 334–345 (1996).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
54.Giantsis, I. A., Mucci, N., Randi, E., Abatzopoulos, T. J. & Apostolidis, A. P. Microsatellite variation of mussels (Mytilus galloprovincialis) in central and eastern Mediterranean: Genetic panmixia in the Aegean and the Ionian Seas. J. Mar. Biol. Assoc. UK 94, 797–809 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
55.Tarnowska, K., Chenuil, A., Nikula, R., Féral, J. & Wolowicz, M. Complex genetic population structure of the bivalve Cerastoderma glaucum in a highly fragmented lagoon habitat. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 406, 173–184 (2010).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
56.Šegvić-Bubić, T. et al. Translocation and aquaculture impact on genetic diversity and composition of wild self-sustainable Ostrea edulis populations in the Adriatic sea. Front. Mar. Sci. 7, 1–13 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
57.Dupont, L., Ellien, C. & Viard, F. Limits to gene flow in the slipper limpet Crepidula fornicata as revealed by microsatellite data and a larval dispersal model. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 349, 125–138 (2007).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
58.Ellegren, H. & Ellegren, N. Determinants of genetic diversity. Nat. Publ. Gr. 17, 422–433 (2016).CAS 

Google Scholar 
59.Mendo, T., Moltschaniwskyj, N., Lyle, J. M., Tracey, S. R. & Semmens, J. M. Role of density in aggregation patterns and synchronization of spawning in the hermaphroditic scallop Pecten fumatus. Mar. Biol. 161, 2857–2868 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
60.Žuljević, A., Despalatović, M., Cvitković, I., Morton, B. & Antolić, B. Mass spawning by the date mussel Lithophaga lithophaga. Sci. Rep. 8, 10781 (2018).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
61.Lamare, M. D. & Stewart, B. G. Mass spawning by the sea urchin Evechinus chloroticus (Echinodermata: Echinoidea) in a New Zealand fiord. Mar. Biol. 132, 135–140 (1998).Article 

Google Scholar 
62.Soong, K., Chang, D. & Chao, S. Presence of spawn-inducing pheromones in two brittle stars (Echinodermata: Ophiuroidea). Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 292, 195–201 (2005).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
63.Watson, G., Bentley, M., Gaudron, S. & Hardege, J. The role of chemical signals in the spawning induction of polychaete worms and other marine invertebrates. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 294, 169–187 (2003).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
64.Gaulejac, B. D., Henry, M. & Vicente, N. An ultrastructural study of gametogenesis of the marine bivalve Pinna nobilis (Linnaeus 1758) II, Spermatogenesis. J. Molluscan Stud. 61, 393–403 (1995).Article 

Google Scholar 
65.Cabanellas-Reboredo, M. et al. Recruitment of Pinna nobilis (Mollusca: Bivalvia) on artificial structures. Mar. Biodivers. Rec. 2, e126 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
66.Prado, P. et al. Breeding, planktonic and settlement factors shape recruitment patterns of one of the last remaining major population of Pinna nobilis within Spanish waters. Hydrobiologia 847, 771–786 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
67.Deudero, S. et al. Reproductive investment of the pen shell Pinna nobilis Linnaeus, 1758 in Cabrera National Park (Spain). Mediterr. Mar. Sci. 18, 271 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
68.Costantini, F., Rugiu, L., Cerrano, C. & Abbiati, M. Living upside down: Patterns of red coral settlement in a cave. Mediterr. Mar. Sci. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.4649 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
69.Cárdenas, L., Castilla, J. C. & Viard, F. Hierarchical analysis of the population genetic structure in Concholepas concholepas, a marine mollusk with a long-lived dispersive larva. Mar. Ecol. 37, 359–369 (2016).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
70.Morvezen, R. et al. Genetic structure of a commercially exploited bivalve, the great scallop Pecten maximus, along the European coasts. Conserv. Genet. 17, 57–67 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
71.Borsa, P., Jarne, P., Belkhir, K. & Bonhomme, F. Genetic structure of the palourde 103. Genet. Evol. Aquat. Org. 103, 1–12 (1994).
Google Scholar 
72.Skalamera, J., Renaud, F., Raymond, M. & de Meeûs, T. No evidence for genetic differentiation of the mussel Mytilus galloprovincialis between lagoons and the seaside. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 178, 251–258 (1999).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
73.Boissin, E., Hoareau, T. B. & Berrebi, P. Effects of current and historic habitat fragmentation on the genetic structure of the sand goby Pomatoschistus minutus (Osteichthys, Gobiidae). Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 102, 175–198 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
74.Pérez-Ruzafa, A. et al. Connectivity between coastal lagoons and sea: Asymmetrical effects on assemblages’ and populations’ structure. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 216, 171–186 (2019).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
75.Frankham, R. Quantitative genetics in conservation biology. Genet. Res. 74, 237–244 (1999).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar  More

Sayh QatanahSince 1978 the town of Sayh Qatanah has experienced a strong physical expansion, initially driven by the building of secondary houses by families from the oases below. This was increasingly followed by population transfer, family growth, tourism facilities, and general expansion of urban infrastructure. The number of developed plots within the town area rose from 276 in 2009 to 534 in 2018 (+ 90%). During the same period the total plot area increased from 41.6 ha to 73.5 ha (+ 77%). This lead to an increase in the urban area from 206 ha in 2009 by 24 ha in 2014 (+ 13.6%3) to 252 ha in 2018 (+ 8%). At the current rate of growth, the planned urban space of 268 ha will be reached by 2023, likely followed by densification of the built-up area (Fig. 3). To the east of the city centre a new settlement of 8.6 ha has been established, which, in addition to the typical residential buildings and home gardens, contains a new mosque and an olive grove of 0.7 ha.In 2018 the town’s 56.3 ha non-governmental land comprised 19.3 ha private green spaces, 15.2 ha private buildings, and 4.0 ha public green areas. The total irrigated area thus amounted to 23.3 ha (Fig. 4). The size of individual homegardens ranged between 7 and 3590 m2 with an average of 368 m2. Some homegardens were partly outside the property wall and contained fruit trees and annual crops. In total 33 perennial and annual plant species of 16 families were identified (Table 1). Abundance was highest for pomegranate, olive, rose bushes, and vine, but also peach, apricot, pear, and fig trees were encountered. Garlic was cultivated in 14 of the 25 homegardens studied, followed by onion, maize, and some fodder barley.Figure 4Map of Sayh Qatanah (2000 m a.s.l., Al Jabal Al Akhdar, northern Oman) with all buildings and irrigated areas (gardens) in April 2018.Full size imageTable 1 Species occurrence in the homegardens of the town Sayh Qatanah (Al Jabal Al Akhdar, northern Oman) in 25 randomly selected households.Full size tableOur surveys indicated that besides some private cisterns of unknown capacity for rainwater collection, most residents of Sayh Qatanah used tap water from local borewells for irrigation whereby little attention was given to crop-specific water needs. Average monthly water consumption varied from 43 to 213 l m−2 (mean 97 l m−2 ± 49 SD). This translated to a total irrigation water use in the 19.3 ha private homegardens of 224,652 m3 in 2018. Including the public green areas, the annual estimated water consumption of all green areas of the town amounted to 272,054 m3.Terrace gardensExcluding the newly created terrace areas southwest of Ash Sharayjah and the information-free plots of Al ‘Ayn, by 2018 the actively used area of all five oasis systems had declined from 20.3 ha in 2007 to 19.9 ha (− 2.0%). Fallow land increased by 3.5%, while the use of non-perennial crops decreased by 1.9%. The share of perennial crops without underplanting decreased by 5.1%. In contrast, the share of land under agroforestry increased by 2.1% (Table 2). The 2018 plant census yielded an NS of 13,739 with 25 different perennial species from 12 families. The 2007 count resulted in 1150 individuals less, with 24 different species from 14 plant families.Table 2 Landuse of terraces in the oases of Wadi Muyadin, Al Jabal Al Akhdar, northern Oman, in 2007 and 2018. Data of 2007 are from Luedeling and Buerkert11.Full size tableIn 2007 DN was highest for pomegranate (51%), rose (21%), date (9%), true lime (5%), peach (4%), and banana (3%). By 2018, DN increased for pomegranate (52%) and rose (28%), but decreased for date (7%), banana (2%), lime (1%), and peach (1%). The establishment of drip-irrigated olive yielded a DN of 4% in 2018, while this crop was non-existent in 2007. Over the past decade olive has thus become the third most common crop species in the study region.In 2018 the information-free plots of Al ‘Ayn had a similar composition than the other ones, with the three most common species being pomegranate (51%), rose (27%), and olive (6%). Also the newly established Ash Sharayjah terraces were dominated by pomegranate (38%), rose (28%), and olive (23%).From 2007 to 2018 the NA of most species declined. Sapodilla, pigeon pea, almond, prickly pear (Opuntia vulgaris Mill.) and lemon were no longer recorded in the oases. Instead, prickly pear was identified on the newly created terrace areas of Ash Sharayjah and a young almond tree was spotted in Al ‘Ayn. In addition, a sorb tree (Sorbus domestica L.) was discovered in Al ‘Ayn. The stand of pome fruits such as apple and pear decreased by 89% and 86%, respectively, and stone fruits recorded a similar decline. The NA of apricots decreased by 88%, while the decline of peaches was 71% and of plums 64%. Bitter orange, true lime, orange, and Palestinian lime were decimated by 91%, 71%, 63%, and 22%, respectively, while date and banana stocks decreased by 14% and 16%. In contrast, the NA of pomegranate increased by 11% and of rose by 50%.Al ‘AqrAt a constant total terraced area of 1.7 ha the actively used land declined by 3.4% (Fig. 5). Thereof the proportion of agroforestry systems increased by 3.8%, woody plant alone areas declined by 4.8% and annual crops by 3.0%, and fallows increased by 0.8%. Pomegranate and rose were the dominant species in both years (Fig. 5). While the DN of pomegranate decreased from 63.6 to 58.0%, that of rose increased from 22.8 to 39.4%. Whereas the DN of peach fell from 4.5 to 1.6% and bitter orange, orange, lemon, pear and plum completely disappeared, barley, maize, eggplant, and Rhodes grass (Chloris gayana Kunth) continued to be cultivated on the terrace areas.Figure 5Landuse map of the oasis Al ‘Aqr (1,950 m a.s.l.) in Wadi Muaydin (Al Jabal Al Akhdar, Oman) in 2007 and 2018.Full size imageAl ‘AynAlso Al ‘Ayn’s total terraced area of 1.9 ha remained constant. For the 2007 investigation period, information on landuse of ~ 0.3 ha was missing. This was taken into account in the data on relative landuse changes by not considering information-free plots from 2007 which in 2018 contained 20.5% agroforestry systems, 52.0% woody plants only, 1.4% annual crops, and 26.1% fallow land (Fig. 6, Appendix 1).Figure 6Landuse map of the oasis Al ‘Ayn (1900 m a.s.l.) in Wadi Muaydin (Al Jabal Al Akhdar, Oman) in 2007 and 2018.Full size imageDuring the decadal study period the active cultivation area of Al ‘Ayn declined by 0.2%. Areas with agroforestry systems were expanded by 9.3%, while the use of woody plants only recorded a decline of 16.4%, fallow land increased by 25.1%, and the annual cropping area declined by 18.1% (Fig. 6).Between 2007 and 2018, the DN of rose increased from 54.6 to 61.8% and of pomegranate from 28.2 to 30.5%. The DN of peach decreased from 4.3 to 2.1%, and of papaya, lime, and apricot to less than 2.0%. In contrast to 2007, no records of apple and lemon were obtained in 2018. However, barley, garlic, onion, sweet potato, sorghum, and oats continued to be cultivated.Ash SharayjahIn 2007 Ash Sharayjah’s total area was 15.2 ha to which, by 2018, 1.7 ha of newly developed farmland were added and included in our digital mapping (Fig. 7, Appendix 2). For the determination of relative area changes, however, these newly established terraces areas were not taken into account. During the transformation decade the agriculturally used area of Ash Sharayjah decreased by 4.5%. The total area with agroforestry systems increased by 0.2%, woody plants only declined by 4.5%, areas with annual crops decreased by 2.1% and fallow fields expanded by 3.1% (Fig. 7).Figure 7Landuse map of the oasis Ash Sharayjah (1900 m a.s.l.) in Wadi Muaydin (Al Jabal Al Akhdar, Oman) in 2007 and 2018.Full size imageUntil 2018 the DN of roses increased from 21.4 to 26.7%, while if fell for pomegranate from 63.9 to 61.7%, for true lime from 5.6 to 0.9%, and for apricot and peach it declined to  More

1.Kasischke, E. S. & Stocks, B. J. Fire, Climate Change, and Carbon Cycling in the Boreal Forest (Springer-Verlag, 2000).
Google Scholar 
2.Kurz, W. A. & Apps, M. J. A 70-year retrospective analysis of carbon fluxes in the Canadian forest sector. Ecol. Appl. 9, 526–547. https://doi.org/10.1890/1051-0761(1999)009[0526:AYRAOC]2.0.CO;2 (1999).Article 

Google Scholar 
3.Amiro, B. D. et al. Carbon, energy and water fluxes at mature and disturbed forest sites, Saskatchewan, Canada. Agric. For. Meteorol. 136, 237–251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2004.11.012 (2006).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
4.Li, F., Lawrence, D. M. & Bond-Lamberty, B. Impact of fire on global land surface air temperature and energy budget for the 20th century due to changes within ecosystems. Environ. Res. Lett. 12, 044014. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aa6685 (2017).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
5.Gillett, N. P., Weaver, A. J., Zwiers, F. W. & Flannigan, M. D. Detecting the effect of climate change on Canadian forest fires. Geophys. Res. Lett. https://doi.org/10.1029/2004GL020876 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
6.Kasischke, E. S. & Turetsky, M. R. Recent changes in the fire regime across the North American boreal region—Spatial and temporal patterns of burning across Canada and Alaska. Geophys. Res. Lett. https://doi.org/10.1029/2006GL025677 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
7.de Groot, W. J., Flannigan, M. D. & Cantin, A. S. Climate change impacts on future boreal fire regimes. For. Ecol. Manage. 294, 35–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2012.09.027 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
8.Rogers, B. M., Soja, A. J., Goulden, M. L. & Randerson, J. T. Influence of tree species on continental differences in boreal fires and climate feedbacks. Nat. Geosci. 8, 228. https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo2352 (2015).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
9.Montes-Helu, M. C. et al. Persistent effects of fire-induced vegetation change on energy partitioning and evapotranspiration in ponderosa pine forests. Agric. For. Meteorol. 149, 491–500. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2008.09.011 (2009).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
10.Denslow, J. S. Patterns of plant species diversity during succession under different disturbance regimes. Oecologia 46, 18–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00346960 (1980).ADS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
11.Bond-Lamberty, B., Peckham, S. D., Ahl, D. E. & Gower, S. T. Fire as the dominant driver of central Canadian boreal forest carbon balance. Nature 450, 89. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature06272 (2007).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
12.Gewehr, S., Drobyshev, I., Berninger, F. & Bergeron, Y. Soil characteristics mediate the distribution and response of boreal trees to climatic variability. Can. J. For. Res. 44, 487–498. https://doi.org/10.1139/cjfr-2013-0481 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
13.Sullivan, B. W. et al. Wildfire reduces carbon dioxide efflux and increases methane uptake in ponderosa pine forest soils of the southwestern USA. Biogeochemistry 104, 251–265. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10533-010-9499-1 (2011).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
14.Post, W. M., Emanuel, W. R., Zinke, P. J. & Stangenberger, A. G. Soil carbon pools and world life zones. Nature 298, 156–159. https://doi.org/10.1038/298156a0 (1982).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
15.Tarnocai, C. et al. Soil organic carbon pools in the northern circumpolar permafrost region. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles. https://doi.org/10.1029/2008gb003327 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
16.Walker, X. J. et al. Cross-scale controls on carbon emissions from boreal forest megafires. Glob. Change Biol. 24, 4251–4265. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14287 (2018).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
17.Kulmala, L. et al. Changes in biogeochemistry and carbon fluxes in a boreal forest after the clear-cutting and partial burning of slash. Agric. For. Meteorol. 188, 33–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2013.12.003 (2014).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
18.Yoshikawa, K., Bolton, W. R., Romanovsky, V. E., Fukuda, M. & Hinzman, L. D. Impacts of wildfire on the permafrost in the boreal forests of Interior Alaska. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 107, 4–14. https://doi.org/10.1029/2001jd000438 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
19.Tsuyuzaki, S., Kushida, K. & Kodama, Y. Recovery of surface albedo and plant cover after wildfire in a Picea mariana forest in interior Alaska. Clim. Change 93, 517. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-008-9505-y (2008).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
20.Hamman, S. T., Burke, I. C. & Stromberger, M. E. Relationships between microbial community structure and soil environmental conditions in a recently burned system. Soil Biol. Biochem. 39, 1703–1711. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2007.01.018 (2007).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
21.Atchley, A. L., Kinoshita, A. M., Lopez, S. R., Trader, L. & Middleton, R. Simulating surface and subsurface water balance changes due to burn severity. Vadose Zone J. https://doi.org/10.2136/vzj2018.05.0099 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
22.Taş, N. et al. Impact of fire on active layer and permafrost microbial communities and metagenomes in an upland Alaskan boreal forest. ISME J. 8, 1904–1919. https://doi.org/10.1038/ismej.2014.36 (2014).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
23.Ribeiro-Kumara, C., Köster, E., Aaltonen, H. & Köster, K. How do forest fires affect soil greenhouse gas emissions in upland boreal forests? A review. Environ. Res. 184, 109328. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2020.109328 (2020).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
24.Köster, K., Berninger, F., Lindén, A., Köster, E. & Pumpanen, J. Recovery in fungal biomass is related to decrease in soil organic matter turnover time in a boreal fire chronosequence. Geoderma 235–236, 74–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2014.07.001 (2014).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
25.Conard, S. G. & Ivanova, G. A. Wildfire in Russian boreal forests—Potential impacts of fire regime characteristics on emissions and global carbon balance estimates. Environ. Pollut. 98, 305–313. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0269-7491(97)00140-1 (1997).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
26.Balshi, M. S. et al. The role of historical fire disturbance in the carbon dynamics of the pan-boreal region: A process-based analysis. J. Geophys. Res. Biogeosci. https://doi.org/10.1029/2006JG000380 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
27.French, N. H. F., Kasischke, E. S. & Williams, D. G. Variability in the emission of carbon-based trace gases from wildfire in the Alaskan boreal forest. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 107, 7–11. https://doi.org/10.1029/2001JD000480 (2002).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
28.Kajii, Y. et al. Boreal forest fires in Siberia in 1998: Estimation of area burned and emissions of pollutants by advanced very high resolution radiometer satellite data. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 107, 4–8. https://doi.org/10.1029/2001JD001078 (2002).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
29.Amiro, B. D. et al. Direct carbon emissions from Canadian forest fires, 1959–1999. Can. J. For. Res. 31, 512–525. https://doi.org/10.1139/x00-197 (2001).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
30.Kasischke, E. S. et al. Influences of boreal fire emissions on Northern Hemisphere atmospheric carbon and carbon monoxide. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles. https://doi.org/10.1029/2004GB002300 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
31.Seiler, W. & Crutzen, P. J. Estimates of gross and net fluxes of carbon between the biosphere and the atmosphere from biomass burning. Clim. Change 2, 207–247. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00137988 (1980).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
32.Mouillot, F., Narasimha, A., Balkanski, Y., Lamarque, J.-F. & Field, C. B. Global carbon emissions from biomass burning in the 20th century. Geophys. Res. Lett. https://doi.org/10.1029/2005GL024707 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
33.Cansler, C. A. & McKenzie, D. Climate, fire size, and biophysical setting control fire severity and spatial pattern in the northern Cascade Range, USA. Ecol. Appl. 24, 1037–1056 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
34.Zhuang, Q. et al. Modeling soil thermal and carbon dynamics of a fire chronosequence in interior Alaska. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 107, 3–26. https://doi.org/10.1029/2001jd001244 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
35.Zackrisson, O. Influence of forest fires on the north Swedish boreal forest. Oikos 29, 22–32. https://doi.org/10.2307/3543289 (1977).Article 

Google Scholar 
36.Allen, J. L. & Sorbel, B. Assessing the differenced normalized burn ratio’s ability to map burn severity in the boreal forest and tundra ecosystems of Alaska’s national parks. Int. J. Wildl. Fire. https://doi.org/10.1071/WF08034 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
37.French, N. H. F. et al. Using landsat data to assess fire and burn severity in the North American boreal forest region: An overview and summary of results. Int. J. Wildl. Fire 17, 443–462. https://doi.org/10.1071/WF08007 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
38.Hoy, E., French, N., Turetsky, M., Trigg, S. & Kasischke, E. Evaluating the potential of Landsat TM/ETM+ imagery for assessing fire severity in Alaskan black spruce forests. Int. J. Wildl. Fire 17, 500–514. https://doi.org/10.1071/WF08107 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
39.Soverel, N. O., Perrakis, D. D. B. & Coops, N. C. Estimating burn severity from Landsat dNBR and RdNBR indices across western Canada. Remote Sens. Environ. 114, 1896–1909. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2010.03.013 (2010).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
40.Boby, L. A., Schuur, E. A. G., Mack, M. C., Verbyla, D. & Johnstone, J. F. Quantifying fire severity, carbon, and nitrogen emissions in Alaska’s boreal forest. Ecol. Appl. 20, 1633–1647. https://doi.org/10.1890/08-2295.1 (2010).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
41.Rogers, B. M. et al. Quantifying fire-wide carbon emissions in interior Alaska using field measurements and Landsat imagery. J. Geophys. Res. Biogeosci. 119, 1608–1629. https://doi.org/10.1002/2014jg002657 (2014).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
42.Kasischke, E. S. & Hoy, E. E. Controls on carbon consumption during Alaskan wildland fires. Glob. Change Biol. 18, 685–699. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2011.02573.x (2012).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
43.Tan, Z., Tieszen, L. L., Zhu, Z., Liu, S. & Howard, S. M. An estimate of carbon emissions from 2004 wildfires across Alaskan Yukon River Basin. Carbon Balance Manage. 2, 12. https://doi.org/10.1186/1750-0680-2-12 (2007).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
44.Sedano, F. & Randerson, J. T. Multi-scale influence of vapor pressure deficit on fire ignition and spread in boreal forest ecosystems. Biogeosciences 11, 3739–3755. https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-11-3739-2014 (2014).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
45.Veraverbeke, S., Rogers, B. M. & Randerson, J. T. Daily burned area and carbon emissions from boreal fires in Alaska. Biogeosciences 12, 3579–3601. https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-12-3579-2015 (2015).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
46.Boucher, J., Beaudoin, A., Hébert, C., Guindon, L. & Bauce, É. Assessing the potential of the differenced Normalized Burn Ratio (dNBR) for estimating burn severity in eastern Canadian boreal forests. Int. J. Wildl. Fire 26, 32–45. https://doi.org/10.1071/WF15122 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
47.Moody, J. A. et al. Relations between soil hydraulic properties and burn severity. Int. J. Wildl. Fire 25, 279–293. https://doi.org/10.1071/WF14062 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
48.Ebel, B. A., Romero, O. C. & Martin, D. A. Thresholds and relations for soil-hydraulic and soil-physical properties as a function of burn severity 4 years after the 2011 Las Conchas Fire, New Mexico, USA. Hydrol. Process. 32, 2263–2278. https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.13167 (2018).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
49.Stinson, G. et al. An inventory-based analysis of Canada’s managed forest carbon dynamics, 1990 to 2008. Glob. Change Biol. 17, 2227–2244. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2010.02369.x (2011).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
50.Goodale, C. L. et al. Forest carbon sinks in the northern hemisphere. Ecol. Appl. 12, 891–899. https://doi.org/10.1890/1051-0761(2002)012[0891:FCSITN]2.0.CO;2 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
51.Krinner, G. et al. A dynamic global vegetation model for studies of the coupled atmosphere-biosphere system. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles. https://doi.org/10.1029/2003GB002199 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
52.Thurner, M. et al. Carbon stock and density of northern boreal and temperate forests. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 23, 297–310. https://doi.org/10.1111/geb.12125 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
53.Pan, Y. et al. A large and persistent carbon sink in the world’s forests. Science 333, 988. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1201609 (2011).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
54.Dieleman, C. M. et al. Wildfire combustion and carbon stocks in the southern Canadian boreal forest: Implications for a warming world. Glob. Change Biol. 26, 6062–6079. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15158 (2020).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
55.French, N. H. F., Goovaerts, P. & Kasischke, E. S. Uncertainty in estimating carbon emissions from boreal forest fires. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. https://doi.org/10.1029/2003JD003635 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
56.Chen, G., Hayes, D. J. & David McGuire, A. Contributions of wildland fire to terrestrial ecosystem carbon dynamics in North America from 1990 to 2012. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 31, 878. https://doi.org/10.1002/2016gb005548 (2017).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
57.Goetz, S. J. et al. Observations and assessment of forest carbon dynamics following disturbance in North America. J. Geophys. Res. Biogeosci. https://doi.org/10.1029/2011JG001733 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
58.Wiedinmyer, C. & Neff, J. C. Estimates of CO2 from fires in the United States: Implications for carbon management. Carbon Balance Manage. 2, 10–10. https://doi.org/10.1186/1750-0680-2-10 (2007).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
59.Kurz, W. A. et al. Carbon in Canada’s boreal forest—A synthesis. Environ. Rev. 21, 260 (2013).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
60.van der Werf, G. R. et al. Global fire emissions and the contribution of deforestation, savanna, forest, agricultural, and peat fires (1997–2009). Atmos. Chem. Phys. 10, 11707–11735. https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-10-11707-2010 (2010).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
61.van der Werf, G. R. et al. Global fire emissions estimates during 1997–2016. Earth Syst. Sci. Data 9, 697–720. https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-9-697-2017 (2017).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
62.Hicke, J. A. et al. Postfire response of North American boreal forest net primary productivity analyzed with satellite observations. Glob. Change Biol. 9, 1145–1157. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2486.2003.00658.x (2003).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
63.Sparks, A. M. et al. Fire intensity impacts on post-fire temperate coniferous forest net primary productivity. Biogeosciences 15, 1173–1183. https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-15-1173-2018 (2018).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
64.Amiro, B. D., Chen, J. M. & Liu, J. Net primary productivity following forest fire for Canadian ecoregions. Can. J. For. Res. 30, 939–947. https://doi.org/10.1139/x00-025 (2000).Article 

Google Scholar 
65.Turner, M. G., Smithwick, E. A. H., Metzger, K. L., Tinker, D. B. & Romme, W. H. Inorganic nitrogen availability after severe stand-replacing fire in the Greater Yellowstone ecosystem. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 104, 4782. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0700180104 (2007).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
66.Gower, S. T., McMurtrie, R. E. & Murty, D. Aboveground net primary production decline with stand age: Potential causes. Trends Ecol. Evol. 11, 378–382. https://doi.org/10.1016/0169-5347(96)10042-2 (1996).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
67.Pare, D. & Bergeron, Y. Above-ground biomass accumulation along a 230-year chronosequence in the southern portion of the Canadian boreal forest. J. Ecol. 83, 1001–1007. https://doi.org/10.2307/2261181 (1995).Article 

Google Scholar 
68.Ice, G., Neary, D. & Adams, P. Effects of wildfire on soils and watershed processes. J. For. 102, 16–20 (2004).
Google Scholar 
69.Aaltonen, H. et al. Temperature sensitivity of soil organic matter decomposition after forest fire in Canadian permafrost region. J. Environ. Manage. 241, 637–644. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.02.130 (2019).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
70.Dooley, S. R. & Treseder, K. K. The effect of fire on microbial biomass: A meta-analysis of field studies. Biogeochemistry 109, 49–61. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10533-011-9633-8 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
71.Köster, E. et al. Carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide fluxes from a fire chronosequence in subarctic boreal forests of Canada. Sci. Total Environ. 601–602, 895–905. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.05.246 (2017).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
72.Auclair, A. N. D. & Carter, T. B. Forest wildfires as a recent source of CO2 at northern latitudes. Can. J. For. Res. 23, 1528–1536. https://doi.org/10.1139/x93-193 (1993).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
73.Hayes, D. J. et al. Is the northern high-latitude land-based CO2 sink weakening?. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles. https://doi.org/10.1029/2010GB003813 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
74.Zhuang, Q. et al. CO2 and CH4 exchanges between land ecosystems and the atmosphere in northern high latitudes over the 21st century. Geophys. Res. Lett. https://doi.org/10.1029/2006GL026972 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
75.Osterkamp, T. E. et al. Observations of Thermokarst and Its Impact on Boreal Forests in Alaska, USA. Arctic Antarct. Alpine Res. 32, 303–315. https://doi.org/10.1080/15230430.2000.12003368 (2000).Article 

Google Scholar 
76.Jorgenson, M. T. et al. Reorganization of vegetation, hydrology and soil carbon after permafrost degradation across heterogeneous boreal landscapes. Environ. Res. Lett. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/8/3/035017 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
77.Beck, P. S. A. et al. The impacts and implications of an intensifying fire regime on Alaskan boreal forest composition and albedo. Glob. Change Biol. 17, 2853–2866. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2011.02412.x (2011).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
78.Terrier, A., Girardin, M., Perie, C., Legendre, P. & Bergeron, Y. Potential changes in forest composition could reduce impacts of climate change on boreal wildfires. Ecol. Appl. 23, 21–35. https://doi.org/10.2307/23440814 (2013).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
79.Miller, J. D. & Thode, A. E. Quantifying burn severity in a heterogeneous landscape with a relative version of the delta Normalized Burn Ratio (dNBR). Remote Sens. Environ. 109, 66–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2006.12.006 (2007).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
80.Key, C. H. & Benson, N. C. Landscape Assessment (LA). U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. p. LA 1–55 (2006).81.Epting, J., Verbyla, D. & Sorbel, B. Evaluation of remotely sensed indices for assessing burn severity in interior Alaska using Landsat TM and ETM+. Remote Sens. Environ. 96, 328–339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2005.03.002 (2005).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
82.Mitchell, T., Carter, T., Jones, P. & Hulme, M. A comprehensive set of high-resolution grids of monthly climate for Europe and the globe: The observed record (1901–2000) and 16 scenarios (2001–2100). Tyndall Centre Work. Pap. 55, 25 (2004).
Google Scholar 
83.FAO-Unesco. Soil Map of the World Vol. 1 (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, 1974).
Google Scholar 
84.Melillo, J. M. et al. Global climate change and terrestrial net primary production. Nature 363, 234–240. https://doi.org/10.1038/363234a0 (1993).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
85.Genet, H. et al. The role of driving factors in historical and projected carbon dynamics of upland ecosystems in Alaska. Ecol. Appl. 28, 5–27. https://doi.org/10.1002/eap.1641 (2018).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
86.Turetsky, M. R. et al. Recent acceleration of biomass burning and carbon losses in Alaskan forests and peatlands. Nat. Geosci. 4, 27–31. https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo1027 (2011).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar  More