Philippa Kaur

1.
Turunen, J., Tomppo, E., Tolonen, K. & Reinikainen, A. Estimating carbon accumulation rates of undrained mires in Finland–application to boreal and subarctic regions. Holocene 12, 69–80 (2002).
ADS  Google Scholar 
2.
Gorham, E. Northern Peatlands: role in the carbon cycle and probable responses to climatic warming. Ecol. Appl. 1, 182–195 (1991).
PubMed  Google Scholar 

3.
Loisel, J. et al. A database and synthesis of northern peatland soil properties and Holocene carbon and nitrogen accumulation. Holocene 24, 1028–1042 (2014).
ADS  Google Scholar 

4.
Yu, Z., Loisel, J., Brosseau, D. P., Beilman, D. W. & Hunt, S. J. Global peatland dynamics since the Last Glacial Maximum. Geophys. Res. Lett. 37, L13402 (2010).
ADS  Google Scholar 

5.
Batjes, N. H. Total carbon and nitrogen in the soils of the world. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 65, 10–21 (2014).
CAS  Google Scholar 

6.
Dorrepaal, E. et al. Carbon respiration from subsurface peat accelerated by climate warming in the subarctic. Nature 460, 616–619 (2009).
ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

7.
Nijp, J. J. et al. Rain events decrease boreal peatland net CO2 uptake through reduced light availability. Glob. Change Biol. 21, 2309–2320 (2015).
ADS  Google Scholar 

8.
Petrescu, A. M. R. et al. The uncertain climate footprint of wetlands under human pressure. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA. 112, 4594–4599 (2015).
ADS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

9.
Wu, J. & Roulet, N. T. Climate change reduces the capacity of northern peatlands to absorb the atmospheric carbon dioxide: the different responses of bogs and fens. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 28, 1005–1024 (2014).
ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

10.
Wang, X. et al. Soil respiration under climate warming: differential response of heterotrophic and autotrophic respiration. Glob. Change Biol. 20, 3229–3237 (2014).
ADS  Google Scholar 

11.
Mäkiranta, P. et al. Indirect regulation of heterotrophic peat soil respiration by water level via microbial community structure and temperature sensitivity. Soil Biol. Biochem. 41, 695–703 (2009).
Google Scholar 

12.
Bond-Lamberty, B., Wang, C. & Gower, S. T. A global relationship between the heterotrophic and autotrophic components of soil respiration? Glob. Change Biol. 10, 1756–1766 (2004).
ADS  Google Scholar 

13.
Järveoja, J., Nilsson, M. B., Gažovič, M., Crill, P. M. & Peichl, M. Partitioning of the net CO2 exchange using an automated chamber system reveals plant phenology as key control of production and respiration fluxes in a boreal peatland. Glob. Change Biol. 24, 3436–3451 (2018).
ADS  Google Scholar 

14.
Lloyd, J. & Taylor, J. A. On the temperature dependence of soil respiration. Funct. Ecol. 8, 315 (1994).
Google Scholar 

15.
van’t Hoff, J. H. Lectures on theoretical and physical chemistry: chemical dynamics. Part I (Edward Arnold, London, 1898).

16.
Arrhenius, S. Uber die Reaktionsgeschwindigkeit bei der Inversion von Rohrzucker durch Sauren. Z. f.ür. Phys. Chem. 4, 226–248 (1889).
Google Scholar 

17.
Reichstein, M. et al. On the separation of net ecosystem exchange into assimilation and ecosystem respiration: review and improved algorithm. Glob. Change Biol. 11, 1424–1439 (2005).
ADS  Google Scholar 

18.
Lasslop, G. et al. Separation of net ecosystem exchange into assimilation and respiration using a light response curve approach: critical issues and global evaluation. Glob. Change Biol. 16, 187–208 (2010).
ADS  Google Scholar 

19.
Lasslop, G. et al. On the choice of the driving temperature for eddy-covariance carbon dioxide flux partitioning. Biogeosciences 9, 5243–5259 (2012).
ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

20.
Wohlfahrt, G. & Galvagno, M. Revisiting the choice of the driving temperature for eddy covariance CO2 flux partitioning. Agric. Meteorol. 237–238, 135–142 (2017).
Google Scholar 

21.
Phillips, S. C. et al. Interannual, seasonal, and diel variation in soil respiration relative to ecosystem respiration at a wetland to upland slope at Harvard Forest. J. Geophys. Res. Biogeosciences 115, G02019 (2010).

22.
Savage, K., Davidson, E. A. & Tang, J. Diel patterns of autotrophic and heterotrophic respiration among phenological stages. Glob. Change Biol. 19, 1151–1159 (2013).
ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

23.
Thorne, R., Khomik, M., Hayman, E. & Arain, A. Response of soil CO2 efflux to shelterwood harvesting in a mature temperate pine forest. Forests 11, 304 (2020).
Google Scholar 

24.
Carbone, M. S., Winston, G. C. & Trumbore, S. E. Soil respiration in perennial grass and shrub ecosystems: linking environmental controls with plant and microbial sources on seasonal and diel timescales. J. Geophys. Res. Biogeosciences 113, G02022 (2008).

25.
Keane, J. Ben & Ineson, P. Technical note: differences in the diurnal pattern of soil respiration under adjacent Miscanthus × giganteus and barley crops reveal potential flaws in accepted sampling strategies. Biogeosciences 14, 1181–1187 (2017).
ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

26.
Wutzler, T. et al. Basic and extensible post-processing of eddy covariance flux data with REddyProc. Biogeosciences 15, 5015–5030 (2018).
ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

27.
Luo, Y. & Zhou, X. Soil respiration and the environment. (Academic Press, An Imprint of Elsevier Science, London, 2006).

28.
Hoffmann, M. et al. Automated modeling of ecosystem CO2 fluxes based on periodic closed chamber measurements: a standardized conceptual and practical approach. Agric. Meteorol. 200, 30–45 (2015).
Google Scholar 

29.
Rochette, P. & Hutchinson, G. Measurement of soil respiration in situ: chamber techniques. in Micrometeorology in agricultural systems, Agron. Monogr. 47 (ASA, CSSA and SSSA, Madison, WI 2005).

30.
Peichl, M. et al. A 12-year record reveals pre-growing season temperature and water table level threshold effects on the net carbon dioxide exchange in a boreal fen. Environ. Res. Lett. 9, 055006 (2014).
ADS  Google Scholar 

31.
Nilsson, M. et al. Contemporary carbon accumulation in a boreal oligotrophic minerogenic mire – a significant sink after accounting for all C-fluxes. Glob. Change Biol. 14, 2317–2332 (2008).
ADS  Google Scholar 

32.
Qiu, C. et al. ORCHIDEE-PEAT (revision 4596), a model for northern peatland CO2, water, and energy fluxes on daily to annual scales. Geosci. Model Dev. 11, 497–519 (2018).
ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

33.
Abdalla, M. et al. Simulation of CO2 and attribution analysis at Six European Peatland sites using the ECOSSE model. Water, Air, Soil Pollut. 225, 2182 (2014).
ADS  Google Scholar 

34.
Metzger, C., Nilsson, M. B., Peichl, M. & Jansson, P.-E. Parameter interactions and sensitivity analysis for modelling carbon heat and water fluxes in a natural peatland, using CoupModel v5. Geosci. Model Dev. 9, 4313–4338 (2016).
ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

35.
Jung, M. et al. Global patterns of land-atmosphere fluxes of carbon dioxide, latent heat, and sensible heat derived from eddy covariance, satellite, and meteorological observations. J. Geophys. Res. 116, G00J07 (2011).
Google Scholar 

36.
Ai, J. et al. MODIS-based estimates of global terrestrial ecosystem respiration. J. Geophys. Res. Biogeosciences 123, 326–352 (2018).
ADS  Google Scholar 

37.
Xiao, J. et al. Remote sensing of the terrestrial carbon cycle: a review of advances over 50 years. Remote Sens. Environ. 233, 111383 (2019).

38.
Badawy, B., Arora, V. K., Melton, J. R. & Nassar, R. Modeling the diurnal variability of respiratory fluxes in the Canadian Terrestrial Ecosystem Model (CTEM). J. Adv. Model. Earth Syst. 8, 614–633 (2016).
ADS  Google Scholar 

39.
Wu, Y., Verseghy, D. L. & Melton, J. R. Integrating peatlands into the coupled Canadian Land Surface Scheme (CLASS) v3.6 and the Canadian Terrestrial Ecosystem Model (CTEM) v2.0. Geosci. Model Dev. 9, 2639–2663 (2016).
ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

40.
Waddington, J. M., Rotenberg, P. A. & Warren, F. J. Peat CO2 production in a natural and cutover peatland: implications for restoration. Biogeochemistry 54, 115–130 (2001).
CAS  Google Scholar 

41.
Glatzel, S., Basiliko, N. & Moore, T. Carbon dioxide and methane production potentials of peats from natural, harvested and restored sites, eastern Québec, Canada. Wetlands 24, 261–267 (2004).
Google Scholar 

42.
Hoyos-Santillan, J. et al. Quality not quantity: organic matter composition controls of CO2 and CH4 fluxes in neotropical peat profiles. Soil Biol. Biochem. 103, 86–96 (2016).
CAS  Google Scholar 

43.
Moore, T. R. & Dalva, M. Methane and carbon dioxide exchange potentials of peat soils in aerobic and anaerobic laboratory incubations. Soil Biol. Biochem. 29, 1157–1164 (1997).
CAS  Google Scholar 

44.
Nilsson, M. & Öquist, M. Partitioning litter mass loss into carbon dioxide and methane in peatland ecosystems. in Carbon Cycling in Northern Peatlands (American Geophysical Union, Washington, DC, 2009).

45.
Blodau, C., Basiliko, N. & Moore, T. R. Carbon turnover in peatland mesocosms exposed to different water table levels. Biogeochemistry 67, 331–351 (2004).
CAS  Google Scholar 

46.
D’Angelo, B. et al. Soil temperature synchronisation improves representation of diel variability of ecosystem respiration in Sphagnum peatlands. Agric. Meteorol. 223, 95–102 (2016).
Google Scholar 

47.
Phillips, C. L., Nickerson, N., Risk, D. & Bond, B. J. Interpreting diel hysteresis between soil respiration and temperature. Glob. Change Biol. 17, 515–527 (2011).
ADS  Google Scholar 

48.
Chapin, F. S. III, Matson, P. A. & Mooney, H. A. Carbon input to terrestrial ecosystems. in principles of terrestrial ecosystem. Ecology. (Springer, New York, NY, 2002).
Google Scholar 

49.
Vargas, R. & Allen, M. F. Environmental controls and the influence of vegetation type, fine roots and rhizomorphs on diel and seasonal variation in soil respiration. N. Phytol. 179, 460–471 (2008).
CAS  Google Scholar 

50.
Bahn, M., Schmitt, M., Siegwolf, R., Richter, A. & Brüggemann, N. Does photosynthesis affect grassland soil-respired CO2 and its carbon isotope composition on a diurnal timescale? N. Phytol. 182, 451–460 (2009).
CAS  Google Scholar 

51.
Laine, A. M. et al. Abundance and composition of plant biomass as potential controls for mire net ecosytem CO2 exchange. Botany 90, 63–74 (2012).
CAS  Google Scholar 

52.
Goulden, M. L. & Crill, P. M. Automated measurements of CO2 exchange at the moss surface of a black spruce forest. Tree Physiol. 17, 537–542 (1997).
CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

53.
Bubier, J., Crill, P., Mosedale, A., Frolking, S. & Linder, E. Peatland responses to varying interannual moisture conditions as measured by automatic CO2 chambers. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 17, 1066 (2003).
ADS  Google Scholar 

54.
Bond-Lamberty, B., Bronson, D., Bladyka, E. & Gower, S. T. A comparison of trenched plot techniques for partitioning soil respiration. Soil Biol. Biochem. 43, 2108–2114 (2011).
CAS  Google Scholar 

55.
Lai, D. Y. F., Roulet, N. T., Humphreys, E. R., Moore, T. R. & Dalva, M. The effect of atmospheric turbulence and chamber deployment period on autochamber CO2 and CH4 flux measurements in an ombrotrophic peatland. Biogeosciences 9, 3305–3322 (2012).
ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

56.
Brændholt, A., Larsen, K. S., Ibrom, A. & Pilegaard, K. Overestimation of closed-chamber soil CO2 effluxes at low atmospheric turbulence. Biogeosciences 14, 1603–1616 (2017).
ADS  Google Scholar 

57.
Peichl, M., Sonnentag, O. & Nilsson, M. B. Bringing color into the picture: using digital repeat photography to investigate phenology controls of the carbon dioxide exchange in a boreal mire. Ecosystems 18, 115–131 (2015).
CAS  Google Scholar 

58.
Grinsted, A., Moore, J. C. & Jevrejeva, S. Application of the cross wavelet transform and wavelet coherence to geophysical time series. Nonlinear Process. Geophys. 11, 561–566 (2004).
ADS  Google Scholar 

59.
Welch, P. The use of fast Fourier transform for the estimation of power spectra: a method based on time averaging over short, modified periodograms. IEEE Trans. Audio Electroacoust. 15, 70–73 (1967).
ADS  Google Scholar  More

1.
Kettunen, M. et al. Technical support to EU strategy on invasive alien species (IAS)—Assesment of the impacts of IAS in Europe and EU. (Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP), 2009).
2.
Keller, R. P., Geist, J., Jeschke, J. M. & Kühn, I. Invasive species in Europe: ecology, status, and policy. Environ. Sci. Europe 23, 23. https://doi.org/10.1186/2190-4715-23-23 (2011).
Article  Google Scholar 

3.
European Commission. Regulation No 1143/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council October 22 2014 on the prevention and management of the introduction and spread of invasive alien species. Off. J. Eur. Union. L174, 5–11; https://publications.europa.eu/en/publication-detail//publication/880597b7-63f6-11e4-9cbe-01aa75ed71a1/lan-guage-en (2014).

4.
Olden, J. D., Comte, L. & Giam, X. The Homogocene: a research prospectus for the study of biotic homogenisation. NeoBiota 37, 23. https://doi.org/10.3897/neobiota.37.22552 (2018).
Article  Google Scholar 

5.
Scalera, R. How much is Europe spending on invasive alien species?. Biol. Invas. 12, 173–177. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-009-9440-5 (2010).
Article  Google Scholar 

6.
European Commission. Proposal for a regulation of the European parliament and of the council on the prevention and management of the introduction and spread of invasive alien species. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52013PC0620 (2013).

7.
International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). Compilation of costs of prevention and management of invasive alien species in the EU. Technical note prepared by IUCN for the European Commission. https://circabc.europa.eu/sd/a/7b04a898-12e3-48c3-a0e5-f21a165259b4/2018-Compilation%20of%20costs%20of%20prevention%20and%20management%20of%20IAS%20in%20the%20EU.pdf (2018).

8.
Zamora, D. L., Thill, D. C. & Eplee, R. E. An eradication plan for plant invasions. Weed. Technol. 3, 2–12. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0890037X00031225 (1989).
Article  Google Scholar 

9.
Caffrey, J. M. et al. Tackling invasive alien species in Europe: the top 20 issues. Manag. Biol. Invas. 5, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.3391/mbi.2014.5.1.01 (2014).
Article  Google Scholar 

10.
Csiszár, Á. & Korda, M. In Practical experiences in invasive alien plant control (ed Csiszár, Á. & Korda, M.) 203–235 (Duna-Ipoly Nemzeti Park Igazgatóság, 2015).

11.
Shannon, C., Quinn, C. H., Stebbing, P. D., Hassall, C. & Dunn, A. M. The practical application of hot water to reduce the introduction and spread of aquatic invasive alien species. Manag. Biol. Invas. 9, 417–423. https://doi.org/10.3391/mbi.2018.9.4.05 (2018).
Article  Google Scholar 

12.
Mauvisseau, Q. et al. detection of an emerging invasive species: eDNA monitoring of a parthenogenetic crayfish in freshwater systems. Manag. Biol. Invas. 10, 461–472. https://doi.org/10.3391/mbi.2019.10.3.04 (2019).
Article  Google Scholar 

13.
Sepulveda, A., Amberg, J. & Hanson, E. Using environmental DNA to extend the window of early detection for dreissenid mussels. Manag. Biol. Invas. 10, 342–358. https://doi.org/10.3391/mbi.2019.10.2.09 (2019).
Article  Google Scholar 

14.
Guo, S. L., Jiang, H. W., Fang, F. & Chen, G. Q. Influences of herbicides, uprooting and use as cut flowers on sexual reproduction of Solidago canadensis. Weed Res. 49, 291–299. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3180.2009.00693.x (2009).
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

15.
Rudenko, M. & Hulting, A. Integration of chemical control with restoration techniques for management of Fallopia japonica populations. Manag. Biol. Invas. 1, 37–49 (2010).
Article  Google Scholar 

16.
Badalamenti, E., Barone, E. & La Mantia, T. Seasonal effects on mortality rates and resprouting of stems treated with glyphosate in the invasive tree of heaven (Ailanthus altissima (Mill.) Swingle). Arboricult. J. 37, 180–195. https://doi.org/10.1080/03071375.2015.1112163 (2015).
Article  Google Scholar 

17.
Boyd, N. S., White, S. N. & Larsen, T. Sequential aminopyralid and imazapyr applications for Japanese knotweed (Fallopia japonica) management. Invasive. Plant. Sci. Manag. 10, 277–283. https://doi.org/10.1017/inp.2017.31 (2017).
Article  Google Scholar 

18.
Caudill, J. et al. Aquatic plant community restoration following the long-term management of invasive Egeria densa with fluridone treatments. Manag. Biol. Invas. 10, 473–485. https://doi.org/10.3391/mbi.2019.10.3.05 (2019).
Article  Google Scholar 

19.
Gibson, D. J., Shupert, L. A. & Liu, X. Do no harm: efficacy of a single herbicide application to control an invasive shrub while minimizing collateral damage to native species. Plants 8, 426. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants8100426 (2019).
CAS  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

20.
Szitár, K. & Török, K. Short-term effects of herbicide treatment on the vegetation of semiarid sandy oldfields invaded by Asclepias syriaca L. Extended abstract in the Proceedings of the 6th European Conference on Ecological Restoration, 9, 8–12 (2008).

21.
Stark, J. D., Chen, X. D. & Johnson, C. S. Effects of herbicides on Behr’s metalmark butterfly, a surrogate species for the endangered butterfly, Lange’s metalmark. Environ. Pollut. 164, 24–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2012.01.011 (2012).
CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

22.
Commission, E. Regulation No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC. Off. J. Eur. Union. 50, 1–50 (2009).
Google Scholar 

23.
Working Group on Invasive Alien Species. Management of Invasive Alien Species of Union Concern. https://circabc.europa.eu/faces/jsp/extension/wai/navigation/container.jsp (2017).

24.
Pyšek, P. In The Ecology and Evolution of Clonal Plants (ed de Kroon, H. & van Groenendael, J.) 405–427 (Backhuys Publishers, 1997).

25.
Pyšek, P. & Richardson, D. M. In Biological invasions (ed Nentwig, W.) 97–126 (Springer, Berlin 2007).

26.
Speek, T. A. et al. Factors relating to regional and local success of exotic plant species in their new range. Divers. Distrib. 17, 542–551. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1472-4642.2011.00759.x (2011).
Article  Google Scholar 

27.
Douhovnikoff, V. & Hazelton, E. L. Clonal growth: invasion or stability? A comparative study of clonal architecture and diversity in native and introduced lineages of Phragmites australis (Poaceae). Am. J. Bot. 101, 1577–1584. https://doi.org/10.3732/ajb.1400177 (2014).
Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

28.
Wang, N. et al. Clonal integration affects growth, photosynthetic efficiency and biomass allocation, but not the competitive ability, of the alien invasive Alternanthera philoxeroides under severe stress. Ann. Bot. 101, 671–678. https://doi.org/10.1093/aob/mcn005 (2008).
Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

29.
Xu, L. & Zhou, Z. F. Effects of Cu pollution on the expansion of an amphibious clonal herb in aquatic-terrestrial ecotones. PLoS ONE 11, e0164361. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0164361 (2016).
CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

30.
You, W.-H. et al. Effects of clonal integration on the invasive clonal plant Alternanthera philoxeroides under heterogeneous and homogeneous water availability. Sci. Rep. 6, 29767. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep29767 (2016).
ADS  CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

31.
Smith, J. M. D., Ward, J. P., Child, L. E. & Owen, M. R. A simulation model of rhizome networks for Fallopia japonica (Japanese knotweed) in the United Kingdom. Ecol. Model. 200, 421–432. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2006.08.004 (2007).
Article  Google Scholar 

32.
Balogh, L. In The most important invasive plants in Hungary. (ed Botta Dukát, Z., Balogh, L.) 13–33 (Institute of Ecology and Botany HAS, 2008).

33.
Padula, M. et al. Prime segnalazioni di Reynoutria× bohemica Chrtek and Chrtková (Polygonaceae) per l’Italia e analisi della distribuzione del genere Reynoutria Houtt. Atti. Soc. It. Sci. Nat. Museo Civ. Stor. Nat. Milano. 149, 77–108 (2008) (in Italian)

34.
Jones, D. et al. Optimising physiochemical control of invasive Japanese knotweed. Biol. Invasions. 20, 2091–2105. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-018-1684-5 (2018).
Article  Google Scholar 

35.
Martin, F. M., Dommanget, F., Lavallée, F. & Evette, A. Clonal growth strategies of Reynoutria japonica in response to light, shade, and mowing, and perspectives for management. NeoBiota 56, 89–110. https://doi.org/10.3897/neobiota.56.47511 (2020).
Article  Google Scholar 

36.
Szymura, M. & Szymura, T. H. Growth, phenology, and biomass allocation of alien Solidago species in central Europe. Plant. Spec. Biol. 30, 245–256. https://doi.org/10.1111/1442-1984.12059 (2015).
Article  Google Scholar 

37.
Tiley, G. E. D. Biological Flora of the British Isles: Cirsium arvense (L.) Scop. J. Ecol. 98, 938–983. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2745.2010.01678.x (2010).
Article  Google Scholar 

38.
Nentwig, W. & Müller, E. Plant pathogens as biocontrol agents of Cirsium arvense—an overestimated approach?. NeoBiota 11, 1–24. https://doi.org/10.3897/neobiota.11.1803 (2011).
Article  Google Scholar 

39.
Alpert, P. Nitrogen sharing among ramets increases clonal growth in Fragaria chiloensis. Ecology 72, 69–80. https://doi.org/10.2307/1938903 (1991).
Article  Google Scholar 

40.
Oborny, B. & Bartha, S. Clonality in plant communities—an overview. Abstr. Bot. 19, 115–127 (1995).
Google Scholar 

41.
de Kroon, H., van der Zalm, E., van Rheenen, J. W., van Dijk, A. & Kreulen, R. The interaction between water and nitrogen translocation in a rhizomatous sedge (Carex flacca). Oecologia 116, 38–49. https://doi.org/10.1007/s004420050561 (1998).
ADS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

42.
de Kroon, H. & van Groenendael, J. The ecology and evolution of clonal plants. (Backhuys Publishers, London 1997).

43.
Zhang, Y. C., Zhang, Q. Y., Yirdaw, E., Luo, P. & Wu, N. Clonal integration of Fragaria orientalis driven by contrasting water availability between adjacent patches. Bot. Stud. 49, 373–383 (2008).
Google Scholar 

44.
Wang, Y. J. et al. Invasive alien plants benefit more from clonal integration in heterogeneous environments than natives. New Phytol. 216, 1072–1078. https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.14820 (2017).
Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

45.
Frantzen, J. The role of clonal growth in the pathosystem Cirsium arvense–Puccinia punctiformis. Can. J. Bot. 72, 832–836. https://doi.org/10.1139/b94-107 (1994).
Article  Google Scholar 

46.
D’hertefeldt, T. & van der Putten, W. Physiological integration of the clonal plant Carex arenaria and its response to soil-borne pathogens. Oikos 81, 229–237. https://doi.org/10.2307/3547044 (1998).
Article  Google Scholar 

47.
Stuefer, J. F., Gómez, S. & van Mölken, T. Clonal integration beyond resource sharing: implications for defense signaling and disease transmission in clonal plant networks. Evol. Ecol. 18, 647–667. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10682-004-5148-2 (2004).
Article  Google Scholar 

48.
Bankó, L., Ördög, M. & Erdei, L. The role of rhizome system in the distribution of cadmium load among ramets of Phragmites australis. Acta. Biol. Szeged. 46, 81–82 (2002).
Google Scholar 

49.
Xu, L., Wu, X. & Zhou, Z. F. Effects of physiological integration and fertilization on heavy metal remediation in soil by a clonal grass. Pol. J. Environ. Stud. 25, 1, https://doi.org/10.15244/pjoes/60374 (2016).

50.
Chang, F. Y. & Born, W. V. Translocation of dicamba in Canada thistle. Weed Sci. 16, 176–181. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0043174500046841 (1968).
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

51.
Wyrill, I. I. I. J. B. & Burnside, O. C. Absorption, translocation, and metabolism of 2,4 D and glyphosate in common milkweed and hemp dogbane. Weed Sci. 24, 557–566, https://doi.org/10.1017/S0043174500062949 (1976).

52.
Savini, G., Giorgi, V., Scarano, E. & Neri, D. Strawberry plant relationship through the stolon. Physiol. Plant. 134, 421–429. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1399-3054.2008.01145.x (2008).
CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

53.
Saunders, L. E. & Pezeshki, R. Morphological differences in response to physiological integration and spatial heterogeneity of root zone glyphosate exposure in connected ramets of Ludwigia peploides (Creeping water primrose). Water Air Soil Pollut. 226, 171. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11270-015-2435-1 (2015).
ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

54.
Klimešová, J. & Herben, T. Clonal and bud bank traits: patterns across temperate plant communities. J. Veg. Sci. 26, 243–253. https://doi.org/10.1111/jvs.12228 (2015).
Article  Google Scholar 

55.
Klimešová, J., Martínková, J. & Herben, T. Horizontal growth: an overlooked dimension in plant trait space. Perspect. Plant Ecol. 32, 18–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ppees.2018.02.002 (2018).
Article  Google Scholar 

56.
Inghe, O. Genet and ramet survivorship under different mortality regimes—a cellular automata model. J. Theor. Biol. 138, 257–270. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5193(89)80142-0 (1989).
MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

57.
Tuomi, J. & Vuorisalo, T. Hierarchical selection in modular organisms. Trends Ecol. Evol. 4, 209–213. https://doi.org/10.1016/0169-5347(89)90075-X (1989).
CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

58.
Eriksson, O. & Jerling, L. In Clonal growth in plants: regulation and function (ed van Groenendael, J. & de Kroon, H.) 79–94 (SPB Academic Publishing, 1990).

59.
Watkinson, A. R. & Powell, J. C. Seedling recruitment and the maintenance of clonal diversity in plant populations–a computer simulation of Ranunculus repens. J. Ecol. 81, 707–717 (1993).
Article  Google Scholar 

60.
Newton, P. C. D. & Hay, M. J. M. Non-viability of axillary buds as a possible constraint on effective foraging of Trifolium repens L. Abstr. Bot. 19, 83–88 (1995).
Google Scholar 

61.
Latzel, V., Mihulka, S. & Klimešová, J. Plant traits and regeneration of urban plant communities after disturbance: Does the bud bank play any role?. Appl. Veg. Sci. 11, 387–394. https://doi.org/10.3170/2008-7-18487 (2008).
Article  Google Scholar 

62.
Scherrer, D., Stoll, P. & Stöcklin, J. Colonization dynamics of a clonal pioneer plant on a glacier foreland inferred from spatially explicit and size-structured matrix models. Folia Geobot. 52, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12224-017-9294-z (2017).
Article  Google Scholar 

63.
Schiffleithner, V. & Essl, F. It is worth the effort? Spread and management success of invasive alien plant species in a Central European National Park. NeoBiota 31, 43–61. https://doi.org/10.3897/neobiota.31.8071 (2016).
Article  Google Scholar 

64.
Blossey, B. Before, during and after: the need for long-term monitoring in invasive plant species management. Biol. Invas. 1, 301–311. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010084724526 (1999).
Article  Google Scholar 

65.
Kettenring, K. M. & Adams, C. R. Lessons learned from invasive plant control experiments: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Appl. Ecol. 48, 970–979. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2011.01979.x (2011).
Article  Google Scholar 

66.
Delbart, E. et al. Can land managers control Japanese knotweed? Lessons from control tests in Belgium. Environ. Manag. 50, 1089–1097. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-012-9945-z (2012).
ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

67.
Clements, D., Dugdale, T. M., Butler, K. L. & Hunt, T. D. Management of aquatic alligator weed (Alternanthera philoxeroides) in an early stage of invasion. Manage. Biol. Invas. 5, 327–339. https://doi.org/10.3391/mbi.2014.5.4.03 (2014).
Article  Google Scholar 

68.
Tokarska-Guzik, B. & Pisarczyk, E. Risk Assessment of Asclepias syriaca. https://www.codeplantesenvahissantes.fr/fileadmin/PEE_Ressources/TELECHARGEMENT/Asclepias_syriaca_RA.pdf (2015).

69.
Bagi, I. In The most important invasive plants in Hungary. (ed Botta-Dukát, Z., Balogh, L.) 151–159 (Institute of Ecology and Botany HAS, 2008).

70.
Commonwealth Agricultural Bureau International (CABI). Asclepias syriaca (common milkweed). https://www.cabi.org/isc/datasheet/7249 (2011).

71.
European Invasive Alien Species Gateway (DAISIE). https://www.europe-aliens.org/speciesFactsheet.do?speciesId=17716# (2015).

72.
Szilassi, P. et al. Understanding the environmental background of an invasive plant species (Asclepias syriaca) for the future: an application of LUCAS field photographs and machine learning algorithm methods. Plants 8, 593. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants8120593 (2019).
Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

73.
Kelemen, A. et al. The invasion of common milkweed (Asclepias syriaca) in sandy old-fields–is it a threat to the native flora?. Appl. Veg. Sci. 19, 218–224. https://doi.org/10.1111/avsc.12225 (2016).
Article  Google Scholar 

74.
Bakacsy, L. Invasion impact is conditioned by initial vegetation states. Commun. Ecol. 20, 11–19. https://doi.org/10.1556/168.2019.20.1.2 (2019).
Article  Google Scholar 

75.
European Commissions. List of Invasive Alien Species of Union concern. https://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/invasivealien/list/index_en.htm (2017).

76.
Wilbur, H. M. Life history evolution in seven milkweeds of the genus Asclepias. J. Ecol. 64, 223–240 (1976).
Article  Google Scholar 

77.
Pellissier, L. et al. Different rates of defense evolution and niche preferences in clonal and nonclonal milkweeds (Asclepias spp.). New Phytol. 209, 1230–1239, https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.13649 (2016).

78.
Balogh, Á., Penksza, K. & Benécsné, B. G. Kísérletek a selyemkóróval fertőzött természetközeli gyepek mentesítésére I. (Experiments for immunization of Asclepias syriaca infected turfs) Tájökológiai lapok 4, 385–394 (2006).

79.
Papka, O. S. Agro-ecological effectivness of soil technologies as controling tool for common wilkweed (Asclepias syriaca L.). Acta Biolol. Sibirica 1, 244–257 (2015).

80.
Zalai, M. et al. Developing control strategies against common milkweed (Asclepias syriaca L.) on ruderal habitats. Herbologia 16, 69–84, https://doi.org/10.5644/Herb.16.2.07 (2017).

81.
Bolla, B. Invasive control at Csengődi Plain. Természetvédelmi Közlemények 18, 77–81 (2012).
Google Scholar 

82.
Molnár, Z. & Kun, A. Magyarország élőhelyei: vegetációtipusok leirása és határozója: ÁNÉR 2011. (MTA Ökológiai és Botanikai Kutatóintézete, 2011).

83.
Zsákovics, G., Kovács, F., Kiss, A. & Pócsik, E. Risk analysis of the aridification-endangered sand-ridge area in the Danube-Tisza Interfluve. Acta Climatol. Chorol. Univ. Szeged 40, 169–178 (2007).
Google Scholar 

84.
Zsákovics, G., Kovács, F. & Kiss, A. Complex analysis of an aridification-endangered area: case study from the Danube-Tisza Interfluve. Tájökológiai Lapok 7, 117–126 (2009).
Google Scholar 

85.
Kovács-Láng, E. et al. Changes in the composition of sand grasslands along a climatic gradient in Hungary and implications for climate change. Phytocoenologia 30, 385–407. https://doi.org/10.1127/phyto/30/2000/385 (2000).
Article  Google Scholar 

86.
Kun, A. Analysis of precipitation year and their regional frequency distributions in the Danube-Tisza mid-region, Hungary . Acta. Bot. Hung. 43, 175–187. https://doi.org/10.1556/ABot.43.2001.1-2.10 (2001).
Article  Google Scholar 

87.
Bartha, S. et al. Beta diversity and community differentiation in dry perennial sand grassland. Ann. Bot. 9–18, 2011. https://doi.org/10.4462/annbotrm-9118 (2011).
Article  Google Scholar 

88.
Mihály, B. & Botta-Dukát, Z. Biológiai inváziók Magyarországon: Özönnövények. (Biological invasions in Hungary: Invasive plants). (TermészetBÚVÁR Alapítvány Kiadó, 2004).

89.
Hurlbert, S. H. Pseudoreplication and the design of ecological field experiments. Ecol. Monogr. 54, 187–211. https://doi.org/10.2307/1942661 (1984).
Article  Google Scholar 

90.
Oksanen, L. Logic of experiments in ecology: is pseudoreplication a pseudoissue?. Oikos 94, 27–38. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0706.2001.11311.x (2001).
Article  Google Scholar 

91.
Davies, G. M. & Gray, A. Don’t let spurious accusations of pseudoreplication limit our ability to learn from natural experiments (and other messy kinds of ecological monitoring). Ecol. Evol. 5, 5295–5304. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.1782 (2015).
Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

92.
Colegrave, N. & Ruxton, G. D. Using biological insight and pragmatism when thinking about pseudoreplication. Trends. Ecol. Evol. 33, 28–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2017.10.007 (2018).
Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

93.
Jordan, C. Y. Population sampling affects pseudoreplication. PLoS Biol. 16, e2007054. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.2007054 (2018).
CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

94.
Gratton, P. & Mundry, R. Accounting for pseudoreplication is not possible when the source of nonindependence is unknown. Anim. Behav. 154, e1–e5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2019.05.014 (2019).
Article  Google Scholar 

95.
QGIS Development Team. QGIS Geographic Information System. Open Source Geospatial Foundation Project. https://qgis.osgeo.org (2019).

96.
Doğramacı, M., Anderson, J. V., Chao, W. S. & Foley, M. E. Foliar application of glyphosate affects molecular mechanisms in underground adventitious buds of leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula) and alters their vegetative growth patterns. Weed Sci. 62, 217–229. https://doi.org/10.1614/WS-D-13-00156.1 (2014).
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

97.
McAllister, R. S. & Haderlie, L. C. Translocation of 14C-glyphosate and 14CO 2-labeled photoassimilates in Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense). Weed Sci. 33, 153–159. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0043174500082011 (1985).
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

98.
Carlson, S. J. & Donald, W. W. Glyphosate effects on Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) roots, root buds, and shoots. Weed Res. 28, 37–45. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3180.1988.tb00783.x (1988).
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

99.
Hunter, J. H. Effect of bud vs rosette growth stage on translocation of 14C-glyphosate in Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense). Weed Sci. 43, 347–351. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0043174500081303 (1995).
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

100.
Polowick, P. L. & Raju, M. V. S. The origin and development of root buds in Asclepias syriaca. Can. J. Bot. 60, 2119–2125. https://doi.org/10.1139/b82-260 (1982).
Article  Google Scholar 

101.
Stamm-Katovich, E. J., Wyse, D. L. & Biesboer, D. D. Development of common milkweed (Asclepias syriaca) root buds following emergence from lateral roots. Weed Sci. 36, 758–763. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0043174500075780 (1988).
Article  Google Scholar 

102.
Eckert, C.G. In Ecology and evolutionary biology of clonal plants (ed Stuefer J.F., Erschbamer B., Huber H., Suzuki J.-I.) 279–298. (Springer, Dordrecht, 2002).

103.
Barrett, S. C. Influences of clonality on plant sexual reproduction. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 112, 8859–8866. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1501712112 (2015).
ADS  CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

104.
Herben, T., Šerá, B. & Klimešová, J. Clonal growth and sexual reproduction: tradeoffs and environmental constraints. Oikos 124, 469–476. https://doi.org/10.1111/oik.01692 (2015).
Article  Google Scholar 

105.
Doust, L. L. Population dynamics and local specialization in a clonal perennial (Ranunculus repens): I. The dynamics of ramets in contrasting habitats. J. Ecol. 69, 743–755. https://doi.org/10.2307/2259633 (1981).

106.
Chen, X. S., Xie, Y. H., Deng, Z. M., Li, F. & Hou, Z. Y. A change from phalanx to guerrilla growth form is an effective strategy to acclimate to sedimentation in a wetland sedge species Carex brevicuspis (Cyperaceae). Flora 206, 347–350. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.flora.2010.07.006 (2011).
Article  Google Scholar 

107.
Ye, X. et al. Multiple adaptations to light and nutrient heterogeneity in the clonal plant Leymus secalinus with a combined growth form. Flora 213, 49–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.flora.2015.04.006 (2015).
Article  Google Scholar 

108.
Schmid, B. Some ecological and evolutionary consequences of modular organization and clonal growth in plants. Evol. Trend. Plant. 4, 25–34 (1990).
Google Scholar 

109.
Hsiao, A. I. & McIntyre, G. I. Evidence of competition for water as a factor in the mechanism of root-bud inhibition in milkweed (Asclepias syriaca). Can. J. Bot. 62, 379–384. https://doi.org/10.1139/b84-057 (1984).
Article  Google Scholar 

110.
Watson, M. A. In Clonal growth in plants: regulation and function (ed van Groenendael, J. & de Kroon, H.) 43–56 (SPB Academic Publishing, London 1990).

111.
Willson, M. F. & Price, P. W. Resource limitation of fruit and seed production in some Asclepias species. Can. J. Bot. 58, 2229–2233. https://doi.org/10.1139/b80-257 (1980).
Article  Google Scholar 

112.
Waldecker, M. A. & Wyse, D. L. Soil moisture effects on glyphosate absorption and translocation in common milkweed (Asclepias syriaca). Weed Sci. 33, 299–305. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0043174500082321 (1985).
CAS  Article  Google Scholar  More

1.
Grassi, G. et al. The key role of forests in meeting climate targets requires science for credible mitigation. Nat. Clim. Change 7, 220 (2017).
ADS  Google Scholar 
2.
Jia, G. et al. Land–Climate Interactions. Climate Change and Land: An IPCC Special Report on Climate Change, Desertification, Land Degradation, Sustainable Land Management, Food Security, and Greenhouse Gas Fluxes in Terrestrial Ecosystems (Springer, Berlin, 2019).
Google Scholar 

3.
Harper, A. B. et al. Land-use emissions play a critical role in land-based mitigation for Paris climate targets. Nat. Commun. 9(1), 2938 (2018).
ADS  MathSciNet  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

4.
Bonan, G. B. Forests and climate change: Forcings, feedbacks, and the climate benefits of forests. Science 320(5882), 1444–1449 (2008).
ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

5.
Davin, E. L. & de Noblet-Ducoudre, N. Climatic impact of global-scale deforestation: radiative versus nonradiative processes. J. Clim. 23(1), 97–112 (2010).
ADS  Google Scholar 

6.
Li, Y. et al. Local cooling and warming effects of forests based on satellite observations. Nat. Commun. 6, 8 (2015).
Google Scholar 

7.
Alkama, R. & Cescatti, A. Biophysical climate impacts of recent changes in global forest cover. Science 351(6273), 600–604 (2016).
ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

8.
Bright, R. M. et al. Local temperature response to land cover and management change driven by non-radiative processes. Nat. Clim. Change 7, 296 (2017).
ADS  Google Scholar 

9.
Duveiller, G., Hooker, J. & Cescatti, A. The mark of vegetation change on Earth’s surface energy balance. Nat. Commun. 9(1), 679 (2018).
ADS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

10.
Augusto, L. et al. Influences of evergreen gymnosperm and deciduous angiosperm tree species on the functioning of temperate and boreal forests. Biol. Rev. 90(2), 444–466 (2015).
PubMed  Google Scholar 

11.
Naudts, K. et al. Europe’s forest management did not mitigate climate warming. Science 351(6273), 597–600 (2016).
ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

12.
Luyssaert, S. et al. Trade-offs in using European forests to meet climate objectives. Nature 562(7726), 259–262 (2018).
ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

13.
Thom, D., Rammer, W. & Seidl, R. The impact of future forest dynamics on climate: interactive effects of changing vegetation and disturbance regimes. Ecol. Monogr. 87(4), 665–684 (2017).
PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

14.
Hans Pretzsch, D. I. F. J. B. Mixed-Species Forests (Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, 2017).
Google Scholar 

15.
Astrup, R. et al. A sensible climate solution for the boreal forest. Nat. Clim. Change 8(1), 11–12 (2018).
ADS  Google Scholar 

16.
Pukkala, T. Effect of species composition on ecosystem services in European boreal forest. J. For. Res. 29(2), 261–272 (2018).
Google Scholar 

17.
Felton, A. et al. Replacing coniferous monocultures with mixed-species production stands: An assessment of the potential benefits for forest biodiversity in northern Europe. For. Ecol. Manage. 260(6), 939–947 (2010).
Google Scholar 

18.
Renaud, V. & Rebetez, M. Comparison between open-site and below-canopy climatic conditions in Switzerland during the exceptionally hot summer of 2003. Agric. For. Meteorol. 149(5), 873–880 (2009).
ADS  Google Scholar 

19.
Ciais, P. et al. Europe-wide reduction in primary productivity caused by the heat and drought in 2003. Nature 437(7058), 529–533 (2005).
ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

20.
Robine, J.-M. et al. Death toll exceeded 70,000 in Europe during the summer of 2003. C.R. Biol. 331(2), 171–178 (2008).
PubMed  Google Scholar 

21.
Wood, S. N. Generalized Additive Models: An Introduction with R. Chapman & Hall/CRC Texts in Statistical Science (CRC Press/Taylor & Francis Group, Boca Raton, 2017).
Google Scholar 

22.
Otto, J. et al. Forest summer albedo is sensitive to species and thinning: how should we account for this in Earth system models?. Biogeosciences 11(8), 2411–2427 (2014).
ADS  Google Scholar 

23.
Rydsaa, J. H., Stordal, F. & Tallaksen, L. M. Sensitivity of the regional European boreal climate to changes in surface properties resulting from structural vegetation perturbations. Biogeosciences 12(10), 3071–3087 (2015).
ADS  Google Scholar 

24.
Baldocchi, D. D. & Vogel, C. A. Energy and CO2 flux densities above and below a temperate broad-leaved forest and a boreal pine forest. Tree Physiol. 16(1–2), 5–16 (1996).
PubMed  Google Scholar 

25.
Carnicer, J. et al. Contrasting trait syndromes in angiosperms and conifers are associated with different responses of tree growth to temperature on a large scale. Front. Plant Sci. 4, 19 (2013).
Google Scholar 

26.
Davin, E. L. et al. Preferential cooling of hot extremes from cropland albedo management. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 111(27), 9757–9761 (2014).
ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

27.
Baldocchi, D. D. & Xu, L. What limits evaporation from Mediterranean oak woodlands: the supply of moisture in the soil, physiological control by plants or the demand by the atmosphere?. Adv. Water Resour. 30(10), 2113–2122 (2007).
ADS  Google Scholar 

28.
Grossiord, C. et al. Influence of species interactions on transpiration of Mediterranean tree species during a summer drought. Eur. J. For. Res. 134(2), 365–376 (2015).
CAS  Google Scholar 

29.
Denissen, J. M. C. et al. Critical soil moisture derived from satellite observations over Europe. J. Geophys. Res. 125(6), e2019 (2020).
Google Scholar 

30.
Dezsi, Ş et al. High-resolution projections of evapotranspiration and water availability for Europe under climate change. Int. J. Climatol. 38(10), 3832–3841 (2018).
Google Scholar 

31.
Pita, G. et al. Carbon and water vapor fluxes over four forests in two contrasting climatic zones. Agric. For. Meteorol. 180, 211–224 (2013).
ADS  Google Scholar 

32.
EEA. Europe’s Biodiversity: Biogeographical Regions and Seas. Biogeographical Regions in Europe. The Atlantic Region—MILD and Green, Fragmented and Close to the Rising Sea (EEA, Copenhagen, 2003).
Google Scholar 

33.
Marshall, J. D. & Waring, R. H. Conifers and broadleaf species: stomatal sensitivity differs in western Oregon. Can. J. For. Res. 14(6), 905–908 (1984).
Google Scholar 

34.
EEA. Climate Change, Impacts and Vulnerability in Europe 2016: An Indicator-Based Report, EEA Report No 1/2017 (EEA, Copenhagen, 2017).
Google Scholar 

35.
Vilà-Cabrera, A. et al. Forest management for adaptation to climate change in the Mediterranean basin: a synthesis of evidence. For. Ecol. Manage. 407, 16–22 (2018).
Google Scholar 

36.
Cardil, A. et al. Temporal interactions among throughfall, type of canopy and thinning drive radial growth in an Iberian mixed pine-beech forest. Agric. For. Meteorol. 252, 62–74 (2018).
ADS  Google Scholar 

37.
Belyazid, S. & Giuliana, Z. Water limitation can negate the effect of higher temperatures on forest carbon sequestration. Eur. J. Forest Res. 138(2), 287–297 (2019).
Google Scholar 

38.
Schume, H., Jost, G. & Hager, H. Soil water depletion and recharge patterns in mixed and pure forest stands of European beech and Norway spruce. J. Hydrol. 289(1), 258–274 (2004).
ADS  Google Scholar 

39.
Teuling, A. J. et al. Contrasting response of European forest and grassland energy exchange to heatwaves. Nat. Geosci. 3(10), 722–727 (2010).
ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

40.
Gebhardt, T. et al. The more, the better? Water relations of Norway spruce stands after progressive thinning. Agric. For. Meteorol. 197, 235–243 (2014).
ADS  Google Scholar 

41.
Calev, A. et al. High-intensity thinning treatments in mature Pinus halepensis plantations experiencing prolonged drought. Eur. J. For. Res. 135(3), 551–563 (2016).
Google Scholar 

42.
Goisser, M. et al. Does belowground interaction with Fagus sylvatica increase drought susceptibility of photosynthesis and stem growth in Picea abies?. For. Ecol. Manage. 375, 268–278 (2016).
Google Scholar 

43.
Brinkmann, N. et al. Species-specific differences in water uptake depth of mature temperate trees vary with water availability in the soil. Plant Biol. 21(1), 71–81 (2019).
CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

44.
McGloin, R. et al. Available energy partitioning during drought at two Norway spruce forests and a European Beech forest in Central Europe. J. Geophys. Res. 124(7), 3726–3742 (2019).
Google Scholar 

45.
Schultz, N. M., Lawrence, P. J. & Lee, X. Global satellite data highlights the diurnal asymmetry of the surface temperature response to deforestation. Journal of Geophysical Research: Biogeosciences 122(4), 903–917 (2017).
ADS  Google Scholar 

46.
Peng, S.-S. et al. Afforestation in China cools local land surface temperature. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 111(8), 2915–2919 (2014).
ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

47.
Zweifel, R., Rigling, A. & Dobbertin, M. Species-specific stomatal response of trees to drought: a link to vegetation dynamics?. J. Veg. Sci. 20(3), 442–454 (2009).
Google Scholar 

48.
Renaud, V. et al. Comparison between open-site and below-canopy climatic conditions in Switzerland for different types of forests over 10 years (1998–2007). Theoret. Appl. Climatol. 105(1), 119–127 (2011).
ADS  Google Scholar 

49.
Barr, A. G. et al. Intercomparison of BOREAS northern and southern study area surface fluxes in 1994. J. Geophys. Res. 106(D24), 33543–33550 (2001).
ADS  Google Scholar 

50.
Rebetez, M. et al. Meteorological data series from Swiss long-term forest ecosystem research plots since 1997. Ann. For. Sci. 75(2), 41 (2018).
Google Scholar 

51.
Good, E. J. An in situ-based analysis of the relationship between land surface “skin” and screen-level air temperatures. J. Geophys. Res. 121(15), 8801–8819 (2016).
Google Scholar 

52.
Mastrotheodoros, T. et al. More green and less blue water in the Alps during warmer summers. Nat. Clim. Change 10(2), 155–161 (2020).
ADS  Google Scholar 

53.
Zabret, K., Rakovec, J. & Šraj, M. Influence of meteorological variables on rainfall partitioning for deciduous and coniferous tree species in urban area. J. Hydrol. 558, 29–41 (2018).
ADS  Google Scholar 

54.
Li, X. et al. Process-based rainfall interception by small trees in Northern China: the effect of rainfall traits and crown structure characteristics. Agric. For. Meteorol. 218–219, 65–73 (2016).
ADS  Google Scholar 

55.
Xiao, Q. & McPherson, E. G. Surface water storage capacity of twenty tree species in Davis, California. J. Environ. Qual. 45(1), 188–198 (2016).
CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

56.
Leuschner, C. In Ecology of Central European Forests: Vegetation Ecology of Central Europe (ed. Ellenberg, H.) (Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2017).
Google Scholar 

57.
Knoke, T. et al. Admixing broadleaved to coniferous tree species: a review on yield, ecological stability and economics. Eur. J. For. Res. 127(2), 89–101 (2008).
Google Scholar 

58.
Ellenberg, H. & Strutt, G. K. Vegetation Ecology of Central Europe 4th edn. (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2009).
Google Scholar 

59.
Schutz, J. P. et al. Vulnerability of spruce (Picea abies) and beech (Fagus sylvatica) forest stands to storms and consequences for silviculture. Eur. J. For. Res. 125(3), 291–302 (2006).
Google Scholar 

60.
Sousa-Silva, R. et al. Tree diversity mitigates defoliation after a drought-induced tipping point. Glob. Change Biol. 24(9), 4304–4315 (2018).
ADS  Google Scholar 

61.
Seidl, R. et al. Forest disturbances under climate change. Nat. Clim. Change 7, 395 (2017).
ADS  Google Scholar 

62.
IPCC Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. In Contribution of Working Groups I II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (eds Pachauri, R. K. & Meyer, L. A.) 151 (IPCC, Geneva, 2014).
Google Scholar 

63.
Schlenker, W. & Roberts, M. J. Nonlinear temperature effects indicate severe damages to U.S. crop yields under climate change. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 106(37), 15594–15598 (2009).
ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

64.
Anderson, G. B. & Bell, M. L. Heat waves in the United States: mortality risk during heat waves and effect modification by heat wave characteristics in 43 U.S. Communities. Environ Health Perspect 119(2), 210–218 (2011).
PubMed  Google Scholar 

65.
Zivin, J. G. & Neidell, M. Temperature and the allocation of time: implications for climate change. J. Labor Econ. 32(1), 1–26 (2014).
Google Scholar 

66.
Wan, Z. New refinements and validation of the collection-6 MODIS land-surface temperature/emissivity product. Remote Sens. Environ. 140, 36–45 (2014).
ADS  Google Scholar 

67.
Trigo, I. F. et al. Thermal land surface emissivity retrieved from SEVIRI/meteosat. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. 46(2), 307–315 (2008).
ADS  Google Scholar 

68.
Gottsche, F. M. et al. Long term validation of land surface temperature retrieved from MSG/SEVIRI with continuous in-situ measurements in Africa. Remote Sens. 8, 27 (2016).
Google Scholar 

69.
Freitas, S. C. et al. Quantifying the uncertainty of land surface temperature retrievals from SEVIRI/Meteosat. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. 48, 523–534 (2010).
ADS  Google Scholar 

70.
Langanke, T. Copernicus Land Monitoring Service: High Resolution Layer Forest: Product Specification Document (Copernicus team at EEA, European Environment Agency, Copenhagen, 2018).
Google Scholar 

71.
EEA, EU-DEM Statistical Validation (Copenhagen, Denmark, 2014).

72.
Kosztra, B. et al. Updated CLC Illustrated Nomenclature Guidelines (European Environment Agency, Vienna, 2017).
Google Scholar 

73.
R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, 2019).
Google Scholar 

74.
Wood, S. N., Goude, Y. & Shaw, S. Generalized additive models for large data sets. J. R. Stat. Soc. C 64(1), 139–155 (2015).
MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

75.
Wood, S. N., Pya, N. & Säfken, B. Smoothing parameter and model selection for general smooth models. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 111(516), 1548–1563 (2016).
MathSciNet  CAS  Google Scholar 

76.
Götmark, F. et al. Broadleaved tree species in conifer-dominated forestry: Regeneration and limitation of saplings in southern Sweden. For. Ecol. Manage. 214(1), 142–157 (2005).
Google Scholar 

77.
von Arx, G. et al. Microclimate in forests with varying leaf area index and soil moisture: potential implications for seedling establishment in a changing climate. J. Ecol. 101(5), 1201–1213 (2013).
Google Scholar  More

1.
Ladyman, J., Lambert, J. & Wiesner, K. What is a complex system? Eur. J. Philos. Sci. 3, 33–67 (2013).
Google Scholar 
2.
Brevik, E. C. et al. The interdisciplinary nature of SOIL. Soil 1, 117–129 (2015).
Google Scholar 

3.
Blum, W. E. Functions of soil for society and the environment. Rev. Environ. Sci. Biotechnol. 4, 75–79 (2005).
Google Scholar 

4.
Baveye, P. C., Baveye, J. & Gowdy, J. Soil “ecosystem” services and natural capital: critical appraisal of research on uncertain ground. Front. Environ. Sci. 4, 41 (2016).
Google Scholar 

5.
Keith, A. M., Schmidt, O. & McMahon, B. J. Soil stewardship as a nexus between ecosystem services and one health. Ecosyst. Serv. 17, 40–42 (2016).
Google Scholar 

6.
Bünemann, E. K. et al. Soil quality–a critical review. Soil Biol. Biochem. 120, 105–125 (2018).
Google Scholar 

7.
Patzel, N., Sticher, H. & Karlen, D. L. Soil fertility – phenomenon and concept. J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci. 163, 129–142 (2000).
Google Scholar 

8.
Doran, J. W. & Parkin, T. B. in Defining Soil Quality for a Sustainable Environment Vol. 32 (eds Doran, J. W., Coleman, D. C., Bezdicek, D. F. & Stewart, B. A.) 1–21 (Soil Science Society of America, 1994).

9.
Pankhurst, C. E., Doube, B. M. & Gupta, V. V. S. R. in Biological Indicators of Soil Health (eds Pankhurst, C., Doube, B. & Gupta, V.) 419–435 (CAB International, 1997).

10.
McBratney, A., Field, D. J. & Koch, A. The dimensions of soil security. Geoderma 213, 203–213 (2014).
Google Scholar 

11.
Koch, A. et al. Soil security: solving the global soil crisis. Glob. Policy 4, 434–441 (2013).
Google Scholar 

12.
Stankovics, P., Tóth, G. & Tóth, Z. Identifying gaps between the legislative tools of soil protection in the EU member states for a common European soil protection legislation. Sustainability 10, 2886 (2018).
Google Scholar 

13.
Montanarella, L. Agricultural policy: govern our soils. Nature 528, 32–33 (2015).
Google Scholar 

14.
Jian, J., Du, X. & Stewart, R. D. A database for global soil health assessment. Sci. Data 7, 16 (2020).
Google Scholar 

15.
Karlen, D. L., Veum, K. S., Sudduth, K. A., Obrycki, J. F. & Nunes, M. R. Soil health assessment: past accomplishments, current activities, and future opportunities. Soil Tillage Res. 195, 104365 (2019).
Google Scholar 

16.
Norris, C. E. & Congreves, K. A. Alternative management practices improve soil health indices in intensive vegetable cropping systems: a review. Front. Environ. Sci. 6, 50 (2018).
Google Scholar 

17.
O’Dell, R. E. & Claassen, V. P. Vertical distribution of organic amendment influences the rooting depth of revegetation species on barren, subgrade serpentine substrate. Plant Soil 285, 19–29 (2006).
Google Scholar 

18.
Congreves, K. A., Hayes, A., Verhallen, E. A. & Van Eerd, L. L. Long-term impact of tillage and crop rotation on soil health at four temperate agroecosystems. Soil Tillage Res. 152, 17–28 (2015).
Google Scholar 

19.
Hamza, M. A. & Anderson, W. K. Soil compaction in cropping systems: a review of the nature, causes and possible solutions. Soil Tillage Res. 82, 121–145 (2005).
Google Scholar 

20.
Jenkinson, D. S. The Rothamsted long-term experiments: Are they still of use? Agron. J. 83, 2–10 (1991).
Google Scholar 

21.
Berendsen, R. L., Pieterse, C. M. & Bakker, P. A. The rhizosphere microbiome and plant health. Trends Plant Sci. 17, 478–486 (2012).
Google Scholar 

22.
Chaparro, J. M., Sheflin, A. M., Manter, D. K. & Vivanco, J. M. Manipulating the soil microbiome to increase soil health and plant fertility. Biol. Fertil. Soils 48, 489–499 (2012).
Google Scholar 

23.
Bonanomi, G., Lorito, M., Vinale, F. & Woo, S. L. Organic amendments, beneficial microbes, and soil microbiota: toward a unified framework for disease suppression. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 56, 1–20 (2018).
Google Scholar 

24.
Chen, X. D. et al. Soil biodiversity and biogeochemical function in managed ecosystems. Soil Res. 58, 1–20 (2020).
Google Scholar 

25.
Pittelkow, C. M. et al. Productivity limits and potentials of the principles of conservation agriculture. Nature 517, 365–368 (2015).
Google Scholar 

26.
Ogle, S. M., Swan, A. & Paustian, K. No-till management impacts on crop productivity, carbon input and soil carbon sequestration. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 149, 37–49 (2012).
Google Scholar 

27.
Zimnicki, T. et al. On quantifying water quality benefits of healthy soils. BioScience 70, 343–352 (2020).
Google Scholar 

28.
Evans, A. E., Mateo-Sagasta, J., Qadir, M., Boelee, E. & Ippolito, A. Agricultural water pollution: key knowledge gaps and research needs. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 36, 20–27 (2019).
Google Scholar 

29.
Carpenter, S. R. et al. Nonpoint pollution of surface waters with phosphorus and nitrogen. Ecol. Appl. 8, 559–568 (1998).
Google Scholar 

30.
Lamichhane, S., Krishna, K. B. & Sarukkalige, R. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) removal by sorption: a review. Chemosphere 148, 336–353 (2016).
Google Scholar 

31.
Tournebize, J., Chaumont, C. & Mander, Ü. Implications for constructed wetlands to mitigate nitrate and pesticide pollution in agricultural drained watersheds. Ecol. Eng. 103, 415–425 (2017).
Google Scholar 

32.
Hanson, J. R., Macalady, J. L., Harris, D. & Scow, K. M. Linking toluene degradation with specific microbial populations in soil. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 65, 5403–5408 (1999).
Google Scholar 

33.
Li, G., Sun, G. X., Ren, Y., Luo, X. S. & Zhu, Y. G. Urban soil and human health: a review. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 69, 196–215 (2018).
Google Scholar 

34.
Laurenson, G., Laurenson, S., Bolan, N., Beecham, S. & Clark, I. The role of bioretention systems in the treatment of stormwater. Adv. Agron. 120, 223–274 (2013).
Google Scholar 

35.
Wagg, C., Bender, S. F., Widmer, F. & van der Heijden, M. G. Soil biodiversity and soil community composition determine ecosystem multifunctionality. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 5266–5270 (2014).
Google Scholar 

36.
Kadam, A. M., Oza, G. H., Nemade, P. D. & Shankar, H. S. Pathogen removal from municipal wastewater in constructed soil filter. Ecol. Eng. 33, 37–44 (2008).
Google Scholar 

37.
Welch, R. M. & Graham, R. D. Breeding for micronutrients in staple food crops from a human nutrition perspective. J. Exp. Bot. 55, 353–364 (2004).
Google Scholar 

38.
Barrett, C. B. & Bevis, L. E. The self-reinforcing feedback between low soil fertility and chronic poverty. Nat. Geosci. 8, 907–912 (2015).
Google Scholar 

39.
Wood, S. A., Tirfessa, D. & Baudron, F. Soil organic matter underlies crop nutritional quality and productivity in smallholder agriculture. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 266, 100–108 (2018).
Google Scholar 

40.
Wall, D. H., Nielsen, U. N. & Six, J. Soil biodiversity and human health. Nature 528, 69–76 (2015).
Google Scholar 

41.
Jacoby, R., Peukert, M., Succurro, A., Koprivova, A. & Kopriva, S. The role of soil microorganisms in plant mineral nutrition—current knowledge and future directions. Front. Plant Sci. 8, 1617 (2017).
Google Scholar 

42.
Schlatter, D., Kinkel, L., Thomashow, L., Weller, D. & Paulitz, T. Disease suppressive soils: new insights from the soil microbiome. Phytopathology 107, 1284–1297 (2017).
Google Scholar 

43.
Rillig, M. C., Lehmann, A., Lehmann, J., Camenzind, T. & Rauh, C. Soil biodiversity effects from field to fork. Trends Plant Sci. 23, 17–24 (2018).
Google Scholar 

44.
Oliver, M. A. & Gregory, P. J. Soil, food security and human health: a review. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 66, 257–276 (2015).
Google Scholar 

45.
Hussein, H. S. & Brasel, J. M. Toxicity, metabolism, and impact of mycotoxins on humans and animals. Toxicology 167, 101–134 (2001).
Google Scholar 

46.
Bethony, J. et al. Soil-transmitted helminth infections: ascariasis, trichuriasis, and hookworm. Lancet 367, 1521–1532 (2006).
Google Scholar 

47.
Schatz, A., Bugle, E. & Waksman, S. A. Streptomycin, a substance exhibiting antibiotic activity against gram-positive and gram-negative bacteria. Proc. Soc. Exp. Biol. Med. 55, 66–69 (1944).
Google Scholar 

48.
Ling, L. L. et al. A new antibiotic kills pathogens without detectable resistance. Nature 517, 455–459 (2015).
Google Scholar 

49.
Veresoglou, S. D., Halley, J. M. & Rillig, M. C. Extinction risk of soil biota. Nat. Commun. 6, 8862 (2015).
Google Scholar 

50.
Lal, R. Soil carbon sequestration impacts on global climate change and food security. Science 304, 1623–1627 (2004).
Google Scholar 

51.
Paustian, K. et al. Climate-smart soils. Nature 532, 49–57 (2016).
Google Scholar 

52.
Denef, K. & Six, J. Clay mineralogy determines the importance of biological versus abiotic processes for macroaggregate formation and stabilization. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 56, 469–479 (2005).
Google Scholar 

53.
Rinot, O., Levy, G. J., Steinberger, Y., Svoray, T. & Eshel, G. Soil health assessment: A critical review of current methodologies and a proposed new approach. Sci. Total. Environ. 648, 1484–1491 (2019).
Google Scholar 

54.
Van Wesemael, B. et al. An indicator for organic matter dynamics in temperate agricultural soils. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 274, 62–75 (2019).
Google Scholar 

55.
Bouma, J. et al. in Global Soil Security (eds Field, D. J., Morgan, C. L. S. & McBratney, A. B.) 27–44 (Springer, 2017).

56.
Schoenholtz, S. H., Van Miegroet, H. & Burger, J. A. A review of chemical and physical properties as indicators of forest soil quality: challenges and opportunities. For. Ecol. Manag. 138, 335–356 (2000).
Google Scholar 

57.
Andrews, S. S. & Carroll, C. R. Designing a soil quality assessment tool for sustainable agroecosystem management. Ecol. Appl. 11, 1573–1585 (2001).
Google Scholar 

58.
Lilburne, L. R., Hewitt, A. E., Sparling, G. P. & Selvarajah, N. Soil quality in New Zealand: policy and the science response. J. Environ. Qual. 31, 1768–1773 (2002).
Google Scholar 

59.
Idowu, O. J. et al. Use of an integrative soil health test for evaluation of soil management impacts. Renew. Agric. Food Syst. 24, 214–224 (2009).
Google Scholar 

60.
Cherubin, M. R. et al. A Soil Management Assessment Framework (SMAF) evaluation of Brazilian sugarcane expansion on soil quality. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 80, 215–226 (2016).
Google Scholar 

61.
E.U. Mission Board Soil Health and Food. Caring for Soil is Caring for Life. The Publications Office of the European Union https://op.europa.eu/en/web/eu-law-and-publications/publication-detail/-/publication/32d5d312-b689-11ea-bb7a-01aa75ed71a1 (European Commission, 2020).

62.
Nunes, M. R., Karlen, D. L., Veum, K. S., Moorman, T. B. & Cambardella, C. A. Biological soil health indicators respond to tillage intensity: a US meta-analysis. Geoderma 369, 114335 (2020).
Google Scholar 

63.
Kaiser, E. A. et al. Nitrous oxide release from arable soil: importance of N-fertilization, crops and temporal variation. Soil Biol. Biochem. 30, 1553–1563 (1998).
Google Scholar 

64.
Baldock, J. A., Beare, M. H., Curtin, D. & Hawke, B. Stocks, composition and vulnerability to loss of soil organic carbon predicted using mid-infrared spectroscopy. Soil Res. 56, 468–480 (2018).
Google Scholar 

65.
Rossel, R. V. et al. Continental-scale soil carbon composition and vulnerability modulated by regional environmental controls. Nat. Geosci. 12, 547–552 (2019).
Google Scholar 

66.
Six, J., Bossuyt, H., Degryze, S. & Denef, K. A history of research on the link between (micro)aggregates, soil biota, and soil organic matter dynamics. Soil Tillage Res. 79, 7–31 (2004).
Google Scholar 

67.
Pietrelli, A., Bavasso, I., Lovecchio, N., Ferrara, V. & Allard, B. in 8th IEEE International Workshop on Advances in Sensors and Interfaces (IWASI) 302–306 (IEEE, 2019).

68.
Shaikh, F. K. & Zeadally, S. Energy harvesting in wireless sensor networks: a comprehensive review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 55, 1041–1054 (2016).
Google Scholar 

69.
Tan, X., Sun, Z., Wang, P. & Sun, Y. Environment-aware localization for wireless sensor networks using magnetic induction. Ad Hoc Netw. 98, 102030 (2020).
Google Scholar 

70.
Lehmann, J. et al. Persistence of soil organic carbon caused by functional complexity. Nat. Geosci. 13, 529–534 (2020).
Google Scholar 

71.
Tedersoo, L. et al. Global diversity and geography of soil fungi. Science 346, 1078 (2014).
Google Scholar 

72.
Van Den Hoogen, J. et al. Soil nematode abundance and functional group composition at a global scale. Nature 572, 194–198 (2019).
Google Scholar 

73.
Rillig, M. C., Bonneval, K. & Lehmann, J. Sounds of soil: a new world of interactions under our feet? Soil Syst. 3, 45 (2019).
Google Scholar 

74.
Smolka, M. et al. A mobile lab-on-a-chip device for on-site soil nutrient analysis. Precision Agric. 18, 152–168 (2017).
Google Scholar 

75.
Rossel, R. A. V. & Bouma, J. Soil sensing: a new paradigm for agriculture. Agric. Syst. 148, 71–74 (2016).
Google Scholar 

76.
Ali, M. A., Dong, L., Dhau, J., Khosla, A. & Kaushik, A. Perspective — electrochemical sensors for soil quality assessment. J. Electrochem. Soc. 167, 037550 (2020).
Google Scholar 

77.
Enell, A. et al. Combining leaching and passive sampling to measure the mobility and distribution between porewater, DOC, and colloids of native oxy-PAHs, N-PACs, and PAHs in historically contaminated soil. Environ. Sci. Technol. 50, 11797–11805 (2016).
Google Scholar 

78.
Sismaet, H. J. & Goluch, E. D. Electrochemical probes of microbial community behaviour. Annu. Rev. Anal. Chem. 11, 441–461 (2018).
Google Scholar 

79.
Chabrillat, S. et al. Imaging spectroscopy for soil mapping and monitoring. Surv. Geophys. 40, 361–399 (2019).
Google Scholar 

80.
Mohanty, B. P., Cosh, M. H., Lakshmi, V. & Montzka, C. Soil moisture remote sensing: state-of-the-science. Vadose Zone J. 16, 1–9 (2017).
Google Scholar 

81.
Paustian, K. et al. Quantifying carbon for agricultural soil management: from the current status toward a global soil information system. Carbon Manage. 10, 567–587 (2019).
Google Scholar 

82.
Duckett, T. et al. Agricultural robotics: the future of robotic agriculture. Preprint arXiv https://arxiv.org/abs/1806.06762 (2018).

83.
Hussain, I., Olson, K. R., Wander, M. M. & Karlen, D. L. Adaptation of soil quality indices and application to three tillage systems in southern Illinois. Soil Tillage Res. 50, 237–249 (1999).
Google Scholar 

84.
Fine, A. K., van Es, H. M. & Schindelbeck, R. R. Statistics, scoring functions, and regional analysis of a comprehensive soil health database. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 81, 589–601 (2017).
Google Scholar 

85.
Svoray, T., Hassid, I., Atkinson, P. M., Moebius-Clune, B. N. & van Es, H. M. Mapping soil health over large agriculturally important areas. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 79, 1420–1434 (2015).
Google Scholar 

86.
Moebius-Clune, B. N. et al. Comprehensive Assessment of Soil Health – The Cornell Framework, Edition 3.1 (Cornell Univ. Press, 2016).

87.
Wiesmeier, M. et al. Soil organic carbon storage as a key function of soils-a review of drivers and indicators at various scales. Geoderma 333, 149–162 (2019).
Google Scholar 

88.
Lima, A. C. R., Brussaard, L., Totola, M. R., Hoogmoed, W. B. & de Goede, R. G. M. A functional evaluation of three indicator sets for assessing soil quality. Appl. Soil Ecol. 64, 194–200 (2013).
Google Scholar 

89.
Verheijen, F. G., Bellamy, P. H., Kibblewhite, M. G. & Gaunt, J. L. Organic carbon ranges in arable soils of England and Wales. Soil Use Manage. 21, 2–9 (2005).
Google Scholar 

90.
Bucka, F. B., Kölbl, A., Uteau, D., Peth, S. & Kögel-Knabner, I. Organic matter input determines structure development and aggregate formation in artificial soils. Geoderma 354, 113881 (2019).
Google Scholar 

91.
Kaiser, K. et al. Driving forces of soil bacterial community structure, diversity, and function in temperate grasslands and forests. Sci. Rep. 6, 33696 (2016).
Google Scholar 

92.
Jordan-Meille, L. et al. An overview of fertilizer-P recommendations in Europe: soil testing, calibration and fertilizer recommendations. Soil Use Manage. 28, 419–435 (2012).
Google Scholar 

93.
McLellan, E. L. et al. The nitrogen balancing act: tracking the environmental performance of food production. Bioscience 68, 194–203 (2018).
Google Scholar 

94.
Brevik, E. C. & Sauer, T. J. The past, present, and future of soils and human health studies. Soil 1, 35–46 (2015).
Google Scholar 

95.
Pereira, P., Bogunovic, I., Muñoz-Rojas, M. & Brevik, E. C. Soil ecosystem services, sustainability, valuation and management. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sci. Health 5, 7–13 (2018).
Google Scholar 

96.
Bampa, F. et al. Harvesting European knowledge on soil functions and land management using multi-criteria decision analysis. Soil Use Manage. 35, 6–20 (2019).
Google Scholar 

97.
Schulte, R. P. et al. Demands on land: mapping competing societal expectations for the functionality of agricultural soils in Europe. Environ. Sci. Policy 100, 113–125 (2019).
Google Scholar 

98.
Ward, M. O., Grinstein, G. & Keim, D. Interactive Data Visualization: Foundations, Techniques, and Applications (AK Peters/CRC Press, 2015).

99.
Villamil, M. B., Miguez, F. E. & Bollero, G. A. Multivariate analysis and visualization of soil quality data for no-till systems. J. Environ. Qual. 37, 2063–2069 (2008).
Google Scholar 

100.
Börner, K., Bueckle, A. & Ginda, M. Data visualization literacy: definitions, conceptual frameworks, exercises, and assessments. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 1857–1864 (2019).
Google Scholar 

101.
Reichstein, M. et al. Deep learning and process understanding for data-driven Earth system science. Nature 566, 195–204 (2019).
Google Scholar 

102.
Tian, R. & Wu, J. Groundwater quality appraisal by improved set pair analysis with game theory weightage and health risk estimation of contaminants for Xuecha drinking water source in a loess area in Northwest China. Hum. Ecol. Risk Assess. Int. J. 25, 132–157 (2019).
Google Scholar 

103.
Finger, R., Swinton, S. M., Benni, N. E. & Walter, A. Precision farming at the nexus of agricultural production and the environment. Annu. Rev. Resour. Econ. 11, 313–335 (2019).
Google Scholar 

104.
van Joolingen, W. R., de Jong, T., Lazonder, A. W., Savelsbergh, E. R. & Manlove, S. Co-Lab: research and development of an online learning environment for collaborative scientific discovery learning. Comput. Hum. Behav. 21, 671–688 (2005).
Google Scholar 

105.
Stott, D. E. Recommended Soil Health Indicators and Associated Laboratory Procedures. Soil Health Technical Note No. 450-03 (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2019).

106.
Haberern, J. A soil health index. J. Soil Water Conserv. 47, 6 (1992).
Google Scholar 

107.
Pankhurst, C. E. et al. Evaluation of soil biological properties as potential bioindicators of soil health. Austr. J. Exp. Agric. 35, 1015–1028 (1995).
Google Scholar 

108.
Doran, J. W. & Zeiss, M. R. Soil health and sustainability: managing the biotic component of soil quality. Appl. Soil Ecol. 15, 3–11 (2000).
Google Scholar 

109.
Winiwarter, V. & Blum, W. E. in Footprints in the Soil. People and Ideas in Soil History (ed. Warkentin, B.) 107–122 (Elsevier, 2006).

110.
Capra, G. F., Ganga, A. & Moore, A. F. Songs for our soils. How soil themes have been represented in popular song. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 63, 517–525 (2017).
Google Scholar 

111.
Jenny, H. in Study Week on Organic Matter and Soil Fertility. Pontificiae Academiae Scientarium Scripta, Varia 32. 947–979 (North Holland Publ. Co and Wiley Interscience Division, 1968).

112.
Feller, C., Landa, E. R., Toland, A. & Wessolek, G. Case studies of soil in art. Soil 1, 543–559 (2015).
Google Scholar 

113.
Brevik, E. C. & Hartemink, A. E. Early soil knowledge and the birth and development of soil science. Catena 83, 23–33 (2010).
Google Scholar 

114.
Carson, R. Silent Spring (Houghton Mifflin, 1962).

115.
Lovelock, J. E. Gaia, a New Look at Life on Earth (Oxford Univ. Press, 1979).

116.
Keesstra, S. D. et al. The significance of soils and soil science towards realization of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. Soil 2, 111–128 (2016).
Google Scholar 

117.
Mausel, P. W. Soil quality in Illinois — an example of a soils geography resource analysis. Prof. Geogr. 23, 127–136 (1971).
Google Scholar 

118.
Sojka, R. E. & Upchurch, D. R. Reservations regarding the soil quality concept. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 63, 1039–1054 (1999).
Google Scholar 

119.
Rumpel, C. et al. Put more carbon in soils to meet Paris climate pledges. Nature 564, 32–34 (2018).
Google Scholar 

120.
Freidberg, S. Assembled but unrehearsed: corporate food power and the ‘dance’ of supply chain sustainability. J. Peasant Stud. 47, 383–400 (2020).
Google Scholar 

121.
Chabbi, A. et al. Aligning agriculture and climate policy. Nat. Clim. Change 7, 307–309 (2017).
Google Scholar 

122.
Puig de la Bellacasa, M. Re-animating soils: transforming human–soil affections through science, culture and community. Sociol. Rev. 67, 391–407 (2019).
Google Scholar  More

Sampling rational and design
The EPA in conjunction with local authorities and other public bodies in Ireland has undertaken a substantial characterization of the physical water environment and the impact of human activities on waters17. Therefore, the monitored river water bodies in Ireland and the national river monitoring program are designed to obtain sufficiently representative information across river typologies and on significant pressures to assign a WFD status to each water body across our entire river network (Fig. 1).
Fig. 1

(a) Map of hydrometric areas (HA) in the dataset and (b) locations of all river biomonitoring stations 2007–2018 in Ireland. Both maps created using EPA data. See Table 5 for more details.

Full size image

The data collected covers the range of ecological conditions found in Irish rivers to assist the assignment of an ecological status as required by the WFD. Ecological status is an assessment of the quality of the structure and functioning of surface water ecosystems and it highlights the influence of pressures (e.g. pollution and habitat degradation) on several identifiable quality elements. As part of the WFD, ecological status is determined for each of the surface water body categories (i.e. rivers, lakes, transitional waters and coastal waters) using intercalibrated (see Technical Validation for further details) biological quality elements (BQEs) and supported by physico-chemical and hydromorphological quality elements. Ecological status for surface water bodies is primarily driven by the BQEs, namely fish, aquatic flora, macroinvertebrates and phytoplankton. The overall ecological status classification for any water body is determined, according to the ‘one out, all out’ principle, by the element with the worst status out of all the biological and supporting quality elements. In Ireland, macroinvertebrates are the main BQE determining the ecological status in rivers3.
The WFD requires BQE scores to be expressed as an Ecological Quality Ratio (EQR) to standardize and provide a common scale of ecological quality across participatory Member States using differing national methods18. The EQR is determined by expressing the observed result over the expected result which calculates a ratio score (Table 1). The ‘expected’ or ‘reference’ condition (EQR close to 1) is the natural, undisturbed environment, i.e. the benchmark. The assessment of the scale of anthropogenic pollution in any water body is based on the extent of deviation from expected reference conditions and follows the definitions as outlined in the WFD (Table 1). For example, ‘High status’ is defined as the biological, chemical and morphological conditions associated with no or very low human pressure, and therefore, little or no deviation from reference, ‘Good status’ means ‘slight’ deviation, ‘Moderate status’ means ‘moderate’ deviation, and so on. EQRs provide a common scale to ensure comparability across different pressures, allowing water managers to easily recognise and characterize impact facilitating the development of mitigation measures to restore or preserve ecological status17. To assess the network of rivers in Ireland, monitoring stations cover all 37 hydrometric areas (HA) providing a full national coverage (Fig. 1).
Table 1 The Q-value, ecological quality ratio (EQR)*, and corresponding WFD status and pollution gradient resulting from anthropogenic pressures.
Full size table

Field sampling and data collection
River macroinvertebrates are collected from June to September each year, when flows are likely to be relatively low. Occasionally, for operational or weather-related reasons, surveys may occur outside of this period. Two approached are used. The first, and principal methodology used (96.7% of surveys in dataset), is by kick-sampling with a standard pond net (230 × 225 mm frame with 1 mm mesh). In this approach a semi-quantitative two-minute macroinvertebrate kick-sample is collected from the riverbed preferably from the faster flowing riffle habitats19. A further one-minute hand search is carried out to locate macroinvertebrates that remain attached to the underside of the cobbles19. Depending upon the proportion of various habitats (e.g. glides, margins, pools), time may also be spent sampling these habitats with operators moving location approximately every 4 to 5-seconds over a 50 m stretch. Similar studies in Ireland and elsewhere have found that this sampling approach is sufficient to achieve a suitable representation of taxa for bioassessment of lotic habitats20,21. Occasionally, when the substratum (e.g. bedrock) or flow conditions make kick-sampling difficult, or the abundance of macroinvertebrates collected is extremely low (e.g. toxic pollution, see Kelly-Quinn et al.7), it may have been necessary to spend a longer amount of time sampling the river to accumulate a sufficient diversity and abundance of macroinvertebrates. In fast flowing steep rivers, it may have been necessary to kick deeper into the riverbed to disturb the organisms and include more of the marginal areas to ensure taxa are recorded19. This sampling approach requires avoidance of obvious localized disturbance (e.g. cattle access points) which may adversely influence the sample taken.
If the river depth is too deep to wade, a separate approach is taken. In this scenario, a bankside extension net sampling approach for deep (non-wadable) rivers is used to collect macroinvertebrates. It must be noted that this methodology is used less frequently than the kick-sampling approach. If employed, the depth and number of extension poles attached to a modified hand net will vary on a site by site basis. The net (frame and mesh dimensions as above) is then pulled upstream along the riverbed, generally at a perpendicular angle to the bank to cover as much surface area as possible with operators moving location after every pull over a 20 to 50 m stretch. The net may also need to be emptied between pulls to ensure that macroinvertebrates already collected are not lost inadvertently during the next pull. The extension net is also used to sweep along the water surface and marginal vegetation. This approach is conducted for a minimum of five minutes or until a representative sample is obtained (see Technical Validation for more details).
Once a live sample is collected it is assessed on the riverbank and the EPA Q-value classification is assigned (see Toner et al.1 for more details). This involves recording the taxa present at a suitable and attainable (under field conditions) taxonomic resolution (Table 2) and their categorical relative abundance (Table 3), determined using approximate counts. Once all taxa and their relative abundance have been recorded, the sample is returned to the river. Potential users should note that actual numbers of taxa have not been recorded and are therefore unavailable within the dataset. Similarly, taxonomic resolution may vary from what is outlined in Table 2. Indeterminate specimens may be brought back to the laboratory for identification under a microscope. Taxa are also occasionally returned to the laboratory and identified by microscope as a quality control measure. A brief description of the Q-value ecological quality rating (EQR) is outlined in Table 1. The typology of each river station is described in Table 4, after Kelly-Quinn et al.22,23.
Table 2 The level of macroinvertebrate identification carried out in the field during WFD biomonitoring assessments.
Full size table

Table 3 Abundance categories for macroinvertebrates recorded in the field during WFD biomonitoring assessments.
Full size table

Table 4 Typologies of Irish rivers.
Full size table

Each hydrometric area (Table 5 and Fig. 1) is generally surveyed on a three-year cycle; however, full surveys of certain hydrometric areas may be spilt across two concurrent years (e.g. HA 25), and on occasion a subset of stations were surveyed/resurveyed outside of the main survey year to closely track any progress in status changes following the implementation of a program of measures (Table 6). Certain stations were sampled on a more frequent basis such as seriously polluted sites (i.e. Red dot sites – Fanning et al.24), WFD high status objective sites, priority areas for action identified in Ireland’s national river basin plan17 and occasional sites of interest to local authorities and the EPA Office of Environmental Enforcement.
Table 5 Hydrometric area (HA) codes and HA names on the island of Ireland.
Full size table

Table 6 The number of river biomonitoring stations assessed by year and hydrometric area (HA), held by the EPA* 2007 to 2018.
Full size table

Within each hydrometric area, water bodies may have one or more sampling stations along their continuum. The number of stations may also vary between survey years, although, unless health and safety, or other unforeseen circumstances arise, the EPA attempt to sample the same stations in each survey cycle. Similarly, the numbers of water bodies and stations sampled within each hydrometric area will reflect the geographical area and length of river network. More

1.
Iuliano, A. D. et al. Estimates of global seasonal influenza-associated respiratory mortality: a modelling study. Lancet 391, 1285–1300. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(17)33293-2 (2018).
Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 
2.
Ahmed, S. M. et al. Global prevalence of norovirus in cases of gastroenteritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Infect. Dis. 14, 725–730. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1473-3099(14)70767-4 (2014).
Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

3.
Robert-Koch-Institute (Germany). Infektionsepidemiologisches Jahrbuch für 2018.

4.
Saunders-Hastings, P. & Krewski, D. Reviewing the history of pandemic influenza: Understanding patterns of emergence and transmission. Pathogens 5, 66. https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens5040066 (2016).
Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

5.
de Picoli Junior, S. et al. Spreading patterns of the influenza a (h1n1) pandemic. PLoS ONE 6, e17823. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0017823 (2011).
ADS  CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

6.
Lofgren, E., Fefferman, N. H., Naumov, Y. N., Gorski, J. & Naumova, E. N. Influenza seasonality: Underlying causes and modeling theories. J. Virol. 81, 5429–5436. https://doi.org/10.1128/jvi.01680-06 (2006).
Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

7.
Bjørnstad, O. N. & Viboud, C. Timing and periodicity of influenza epidemics. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 113, 12899–12901. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1616052113 (2016).
CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

8.
Liu, X.-X. et al. Seasonal pattern of influenza activity in a subtropical city, China, 2010–2015. Sci. Rep. 7, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-17806-z (2017).

9.
Bozick, B. A. & Real, L. A. The role of human transportation networks in mediating the genetic structure of seasonal influenza in the united states. PLOS Pathog. 11, e1004898. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.ppat.1004898 (2015).
CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

10.
Dahlgren, F. S. et al. Patterns of seasonal influenza activity in U.S. core-based statistical areas, described using prescriptions of oseltamivir in medicare claims data. Epidemics 26, 23–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epidem.2018.08.002 (2019).
Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

11.
Lopman, B. et al. Increase in viral gastroenteritis outbreaks in europe and epidemic spread of new norovirus variant. Lancet 363, 682–688. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(04)15641-9 (2004).
Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

12.
Bloom-Feshbach, K. et al. Latitudinal variations in seasonal activity of influenza and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV): A global comparative review. PLoS ONE 8, e54445. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0054445 (2013).
ADS  CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

13.
Ahmed, S. M., Lopman, B. A. & Levy, K. A systematic review and meta-analysis of the global seasonality of norovirus. PLoS ONE 8, e75922. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0075922 (2013).
ADS  CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

14.
Petrova, V. N. & Russell, C. A. The evolution of seasonal influenza viruses. Nat Rev Microbiol 16, 47–60. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrmicro.2017.118 (2018).
CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

15.
Su, S., Fu, X., Li, G., Kerlin, F. & Veit, M. Novel influenza d virus: Epidemiology, pathology, evolution and biological characteristics. Virulence 8, 1580–1591. https://doi.org/10.1080/21505594.2017.1365216 (2017).
Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

16.
Conrad, O. et al. System for automated geoscientific analyses (SAGA) v. 2.1.4.. Geosci. Model Dev. 8, 1991–2007. https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-8-1991-2015 (2015).
ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

17.
BKG. Geobasis-de/bkg dl-de/by-2-0. Database. http://www.bkg.bund.de (2019).

18.
OriginLab Corporation, Northampton. Origin(Pro) 2019b. Website https://www.originlab.com/ (2019).

19.
Rajao, D. S., Vincent, A. L. & Perez, D. R. Adaptation of human influenza viruses to swine. Front. Vet. Sci. 5, https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2018.00347 (2019).

20.
Brankston, G., Gitterman, L., Hirji, Z., Lemieux, C. & Gardam, M. Transmission of influenza a in human beings. Lancet Infect. Dis. 7, 257–265. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1473-3099(07)70029-4 (2007).
Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

21.
Ward, J. W. Twelve diseases that changed our world. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 14, 866a–8866. https://doi.org/10.3201/eid1405.080072 (2008).
Article  Google Scholar 

22.
Rao, S., Nyquist, A.-C. & Stillwell, P. C. 27 – influenza. In Wilmott, R. W. et al. (eds.) Kendig’s Disorders of the Respiratory Tract in Children (Ninth Edition), 460–465, https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-323-44887-1.00027-4 (2019).

23.
Pauly, M. D., Procario, M. & Lauring, A. S. The mutation rates and mutational bias of influenza a virus. eLifehttps://doi.org/10.1101/110197 (2017).

24.
Gregorio, E. D. & Rappuoli, R. From empiricism to rational design: a personal perspective of the evolution of vaccine development. Nat. Rev. Immunol. 14, 505–514. https://doi.org/10.1038/nri3694 (2014).
CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

25.
Shah, M. P. & Hall, A. J. Norovirus illnesses in children and adolescents. Infect. Dis. Clin. N. Am. 32, 103–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.idc.2017.11.004 (2018).
Article  Google Scholar 

26.
Patel, M. M. et al. Systematic literature review of role of noroviruses in sporadic gastroenteritis. Emerg Infect Dis 14, 1224–31. https://doi.org/10.3201/eid1408.071114 (2008).
Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

27.
Lanata, C. F. et al. Global causes of diarrheal disease mortality in children More

1.
Dethlefsen, L. & Relman, D. A. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108 (Suppl. 1), 4554–4561 (2011).
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 
2.
Gibbons, S. M., Kearney, S. M., Smillie, C. S. & Alm, E. J. PLoS Comput. Biol. 13, e1005364 (2017).
Article  Google Scholar 

3.
Ng, K. M. et al. Cell Host Microbe 26, 650–665 (2019).
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

4.
Suez, J. et al. Cell 174, 1406–1423 (2018).
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

5.
Chng, K. R. et al. Nat. Ecol. Evol. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-020-1236-0 (2020).

6.
Paine, R. T. Conserv. Biol. 9, 962–964 (1995).
Article  Google Scholar 

7.
Raymond, F. et al. ISME J. 10, 707–720 (2016).
CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

8.
Zaura, E. et al. mBio 6, e01693-15 (2015).
Article  Google Scholar 

9.
Duvallet, C., Gibbons, S. M., Gurry, T., Irizarry, R. A. & Alm, E. J. Nat. Commun. 8, 1784 (2017).
Article  Google Scholar 

10.
Horn, H. S. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 5, 25–37 (1974).
Article  Google Scholar  More

Climate change and agriculture: an institutional perspective
In Pakistan, public institutions are considered among the key stakeholders in irrigated agriculture due to their importance in providing a range of services, i.e., surface irrigation, on-farm water management, pest and disease management, advisory, credit, and marketing services12. Hence it is pertinent to understand how these institutions perceive climate variability and its impacts in the study area.
Regarding observation on changes in climate, the majority of the office bearers reported substantial changes in temperature, rainfall, and cropping season expansion over the past 2 decades (Table 3). Notably, a significant increase in temperature and a decrease in rainfall is observed. Specifically, many respondents were of the view that summer seasons have become warmer. In contrast, monsoon rains, which account for two-thirds of the annual precipitation, has significantly decreased (shifting to late summer months). These observations are in line with the historical temperature and rainfall trends in the study area1,3. Further, respondents also indicated a variation in the duration of both Rabi (winter) and Kharif (summer) cropping seasons. An official from DoAE described that during the past few years, winter wheat cultivation is merged nearly a month to the summer season due to which the next crop faces delays in sowing and subsequent yield losses.
Table 3 Perceived climate changes and impacts at the farm level.
Full size table

In terms of climate-induced impact, the findings show that most of the effects reported are biophysical (droughts, floods, and water resources) and biological (insect, diseases, and weeds) in nature. Officials from PID and OFWM reported increasing water scarcity due to the reduced surface water flows and critical depletion of groundwater reserves that lead to the overall reduction in cultivated area under rice crop. Further, increased incidents of extreme temperature during early crop growth stages and intensive rainfall during harvesting seasons have severely affected rice yield. Heavy rain in late monsoon season leads to flooding in plain areas of Punjab and poses a severe threat to the sustainability of agriculture in the province.
Further, officials indicated that high temperatures and heatwaves have resulted in an increase in crop water requirements due to high evapotranspiration. Similarly, changing patterns of rainfall and extreme temperature events have increased the presence of fungal diseases, insect and weed attacks. Similar findings have been reported by a recent study showing a significant increase in the incidence and severity of climate-induced biological and biophysical risk in Pakistan5. Moreover, an official from DoAE reported a 100–150 kg/ha in general and 150–200 kg/ ha (in worst case scenario) reduction in wheat and rice yields due to increases in weed germination. Several respondents revealed that due to excessive use of insecticides and pesticides, aiming to control pests and diseases, the penetration of various harmful chemicals has alarmingly increased in both soil and water and resulted in degradation of water and soil quality.
In general, various respondents also highlighted the increase in unrest among farmers due to decreasing profit margins on account of the increasing cost of production and productivity decline due to climate change. Many farmers have been switched to non-farm businesses, and this lacking interest may further risk the national goal of sustainable food self-sufficiency and security.
Institutional capacities regarding CCA/ CRM in agriculture
This study further analyzed the capabilities of agricultural institutions using seven indicators-based index approach. Results of the selected indicators are given in Table 4, which shows a medium level of preparedness and capacities of the selected institutions. Specifically, the results of each indicator are explained in the following.
Table 4 Institutional Capacities Index (ICI).
Full size table

Perception and knowledge
Literature shows that stakeholders’ perception and knowledge of climate change and its impact are among the key factors that define the level of intentions to make efforts regarding CCA/CRM19. These attributes allow an actor to formulate practices based on their knowledge and beliefs, which leads towards adequate risk management support19,37. Hence, officials’ perception and understanding of climate change impacts and risk management strategies were selected as the first indicator of institutional capacities assessment. Results (Table 4) show that overall, this indicator’s index maintained a good score, which is highest amongst all indicators. Specifically, most of the respondents had a significant perception of climate change and its induced impacts at the farm level. However, their knowledge and beliefs on adaptation strategies and their effectiveness are limited. Most of the respondents with negative beliefs about climate change adaptation were mainly from research and credit institutions. As reported by Farani37, a vigilant understanding of climate change is imperative to implement risk management mechanisms. Hence these findings imply to mainstream the climate change agenda across all agricultural institutions as they are part of the same institutional chain. This may lead to an equal understanding of climate-smart practices and hence improve institutions’ tendency to design and implement risk management mechanisms at the local level. A study reports similar findings on public health institutions, which also indicated the positive behavior of supervisors as an essential determinant of effective risk management services38.
Training and expertise
Institution’s technical resources, such as professional training and expertise, are also considered as crucial elements while dealing with climate hazards19. Such training helps office bearers to be well prepared and respond to catastrophes39. Current findings show that public institutions attained a medium level of training and expertise, as only 39% of the respondents possessed some knowledge regarding CCA/CRM. Similarly, two-third of the officials did not have any prior experience in climate risk management. Similarly, results show that only 12% of the officials received appropriate training related to CCA and CRM. However, one of the officials reported that since the last few years, some understanding of climate change had been developed at their department, and more officials are being invited for climate change-related training. Low training and expertise of agricultural office bearers in dealing with climatic risks may be translated into little support from public institutions to farming communities and hence may further increase the vulnerability of agriculture. Roosli39 was also of the view that skilled human resource is a pivotal attribute of institutions’ risk management capacity, as they have exceptional ability to provide technical aid to the disaster-prone communities by integrating and effectively using available resources. Fideldman19 has also raised the importance of staff’s skills in terms of integrating and implementing knowledge and mobilizing available resources against the environmental uncertainties. Further, professional knowledge and expertise not only improve the emergency response against climatic catastrophes but also improve the farmers’ and peers’ skills39.
Human resources
According to the Gupta’s Adaptive Capacity Wheel (ACW) framework, human resource has critical significance in determining the institutions’ abilities while dealing with climate risks16. Following ACW, human resources were also chosen as an indicator to assess institutional capacities. According to the findings, the HR index of the institutions reported a deficient value of 0.44. Sub-indicators further revealed that only 31% of institutions had sufficient human resources, and particularly only 26% of the institutions had adequate human resources to meet the operational requirement dealing with risk management emergencies. Officials from DoAE, OFWM, and PID indicated a severe shortage of skilled human resources to meet climate change challenges in the field operations. An official from PID described that, in case of any extreme climate event such as canal breakage, windstorm, or extreme hailing, sometimes quick response and technical support was not provided or possible due to limited skilled human resources.
These findings revealed that lack of human resources in public institutions might lead to limited risk management support and hence may further increase the vulnerability of farming communities to climate change. These results are supported by a study conducted in Congo, where forest institutions lacked in human resources in terms of climate change response15. Gupta was also of this view that institutions with adequate human resources have a greater ability to mobilize climate change adaption and risk management processes in agriculture. These findings conclude that sufficient human resources in public institutions are the prerequisite of active risk management support.
Plan and priorities
Institutions’ priorities, planning, and emergency response mechanism are widely reported as important factors in dealing with the environmental uncertainties10,17,38. According to our findings, public institutions attained a satisfactory score regarding this indicator (0.66). Specifically, one-third of the office barriers indicated climate change as an important agenda for their department. Similarly, in terms of programs and initiatives regarding climate change, 42% of the institutions reported that they are carrying related initiatives and programs. While one-third of the respondents were of the view that they are planning to add CCA/CRM in their priorities. Further, 35% of the institutions, mainly the field institutions such as PID, DoAE, DoAF, and CRS, indicated having an active emergency response mechanism dealing with climatic catastrophes.
Wenger40 reported that effective risk management response is closely associated with emergency planning within the institutions. Huq10, has also stressed the significance of defined objectives and plan among the key factors of successful implementation of adaptation and risk management response to flood disasters. Hence our study implies further strengthening the planning infrastructure by removing existing gaps, which will increase the institution’s abilities in dealing with environmental catastrophes.
Coordination and collaboration
A wide range of literature shows that coordination between different stakeholders is among the critical determinants of the institution’s adaptive and risk management capacities15,16,28 and often support collective action and decision making regarding climate change adaptation15,41. The CCI value of 0.45 showed that institutions had a minimal level of coordination with other stakeholders. For instance, in terms of community interaction, one-third of the institutions reported direct coordination with the farmers, indicating a reduced level of cooperation between the farmers and institutions. The officials who indicated coordination with farmers were mainly from the field institutions (PID, OFWM, DoAE, and SWTL). However, the research institutions had also acknowledged the significance of institution-community coordination. An official from a research institution (FTAR) stated that it is very pertinent for all institutions to have interactive communication with the farmers. However, most of the research institutions have a deficient level of community coordination, due to which most of the contingency plans and alerts (which usually go through the filed institutions) do not reach to the farmers timely. There is a need to develop such a communication system that could connect agricultural institutions and the farmers on a single communication platform.
In terms of inter-departmental collaboration, 27% of the respondents indicate that their respective institutions have a coordination mechanism with other public sector institutions. In comparison, merely 6% of them stated coordination with the private sector’s institutions. However, a decent level of coordination (63%) was indicated within the same institution. A minimal level of coordination, particularly between public and private institutions, is worrisome, as non-governmental bodies of Pakistan, which are already at the emerging stage, could face further marginalization12. Literature also advocates smooth coordination between the public and private organizations for effective adaptation and risk management support in agriculture16. Brown15 stated that a well-coordinated network between the actors of the same institution chain is critical for an active response to a challenge like climate change. Hence these findings conclude that a well-coordinated institutional setup may be more capable in coping with agricultural hazards.
Financial resources
Financial resources are also widely quoted among the significant determinants of institutional adaptive capacity16,28. Financial resources of the institution facilitate the actors’ preparedness and emergency response-ability towards natural disasters42. However, in the current study, the financial resources of the agricultural institutions were severely deficient (FRI 0.36). Findings revealed that only 15% of the institutions indicated funds availability for the CCA/CRM related operations. A significant majority of the officials (85%) reported the insufficiency of the financial resources available for climate change. Overall, a gap of nearly 40% was reported in terms of funds availability and requirement.
The respondents who indicated the availability of funds, particularly for CCA/CRM, were mainly from the research intuitions such as FTAR, SWTR, PWQP. Even though field institutions such as DoAE, DoAF, OFWM, PID have significant importance to carry community-level activities did not indicate enough financial support specified for CCA/CRM related operation. For instance, an official from DoAE reported a severe shortage of funds for launching emergency awareness campaigns and training seminars during the period of extreme weather events such as droughts, floods, heavy rains, and insect attacks. Due to financial constraints, such activities have been restricted to a few official visits or small gatherings in a few villages.
Apart from the field institutions, some credit providing institutions have also raised similar concerns. An official from ZTBL mentioned that in some situations when a cropping season faces unexpected yield losses due to rainfall or insect and disease attack. Farmers, particularly the smallholders, desperately need a loan to cultivate the next crop, and due to the unavailability of credit for such emergencies, the institution is unable to offer credit to these farmers.
Our findings are in line with the studies conducted in Cambodia28 and Cameron15, where institutions reported similar challenges while implementing climate response strategies. As argued by Gupta16, institutions’ financial resources are among the foremost determinants of effective adaptive and risk management in agriculture. These findings imply that the institutions, which are farmers’ first line of defense in an emergency, need to be strengthened in such a significant resource.
Physical resources
Access to adequate physical resources is considered as another critical component to define their role in supporting farmers to manage climate risks at the community level15,43. In terms of physical resources, availability of vehicles, machinery (harvesters, bulldozers, cranes), communication equipment, and hardware are considered for the capacity assessment of field and market institutions. In contrast, instruments, apparatuses, and laboratory equipment are considered for research institutions.
According to the results, the critical index value of the physical resources (0.39) indicates insufficient availability of infrastructure and physical resources in public institutions. Results of sub-indicators further revealed a vast gap (51%) between the availability and actual requirement of these resources. Only 21% of institutions indicated enough availability of machinery and hardware for extreme climatic conditions and emergencies. These figures are alarming as physical resources are pivotal elements while providing community support against catastrophes. Field intuitions, particularly the DoAE, DoAF, and PID, have indicated the critical shortage of these resources.
The officials from DoAE and PID have specifically indicated the lack of vehicles as the critical constraint limiting their efficiency while conducting the field operations. An official from DoAE revealed that most of the available vehicles are either very old or non-functional, which means filed staff has to wait hours and days to complete assigned field operations. Similar challenges were reported in terms of communication infrastructure as the officials from the DoAE highlighted a huge communication gap between farmers and their department due to the unavailability of contemporary communication tools. Previous studies43 have also reported similar findings of lacking logistic and communication resources and urged the provision of these resources for capacitated community support regarding natural disasters. In a nutshell, the physical resources of agricultural institutions are deficient in terms of meeting catastrophic challenges and seek serious consideration from concerned authorities.
Institutional capacities across different types of institutions
To have a comprehensive understanding of institutional capacities across different types of Institutions, ICI was compared by categorizing the agricultural institutions into three categories, i.e., research, field, and market and credit institutions. Cumulative ICI values (Fig. 1) across these categories show that research institutions have attained higher index value, while credit and market, and field institutions are among the low capacitated institutions. The ICI values further show that perception and knowledge were high in case of field institutions, which could be due to their more field experience and interaction with farming communities. Such communication enables them to have a better understanding of climatic risks and farm level CCA/CRM practices. Moreover, financial resources showed the lowest value across all types of institutions. In terms of plans and priorities regarding CCA/CRM, research institutions maintained a higher index value.
Figure 1

Institutional capacities index (ICI) across different categories of institutions.

Full size image

In contrast, field, and credit and market institutions lacked in this indicator, highlighting the need for planning and prioritizing climate change agenda among these institutions. In terms of physical resources, which are regarded among the most critical resources, revealed alarming indications as both research and field institutions had a deficient amount of machinery and hardware resources. These findings imply that focus should be given to these institutions as they play a more crucial role (in terms of community support) when compared to credit and market institutions. Field institutions were also found lacking in terms of human resources, which could constraint the efficiency of these institutions in managing farm-level activities.
Gaps and solutions
After exploring institutions’ capacities in the selected indicators, officials were asked to indicate existing gaps and related solutions, which are essential to increase the capacities in the context of climate governance and CCA/CRM in agriculture. The following gaps and solutions were identified and prioritized.
Need for an effective administrative mechanism
An effective administration and coordination mechanism has been listed as a top priority by most of the office-bearers to enhance the institutional capacity in managing climate risks. Officials also highlighted the importance of ensuring effective administrative mechanisms to implement and monitor the individual and collective performances in ongoing projects. That will improve the output of resources being invested at various levels. Fidelman and Madan19 have also indicated a sound administrative system among the critical components of the institution’s capacity dealing with CCA/CRM. Bettini raised the importance of constructing such a rule system that identifies accountability and defines boundaries and hierarchy in water management institutions18. Hence it is needed to develop or customize such institutional arrangements that are interactive, effectively administered, and target oriented.
Need for physical and financial resources
The second suggested measure is the provision of physical and financial resources required to support farm-level adaptation. Officials indicated that the current state of these resources is not enough to meet the institutional operational requirements to conduct CCA/CRM related operations. Brown has also identified similar gaps among the Congo’s forest institutions dealing with climate risk management15; however, Grecksch14 reported a higher level of physical and financial resources among the German institutions. Officials suggested that an appropriate amount of financial support should be specified for extreme climate events, along with emphasizing the need for communication and logistic resource. Literature also ranks these resources among the pertinent element of effective risk management44. The institutions equipped with such crucial resources would be more likely to overcome the climatic challenges. For instance, at the farm level, well-equipped institutions may have a better ability to reach farmers’ knowledge as well as technical requirements, to reduce the actual and potential losses. Similarly, the research institutions having contemporary technology apparatuses and instruments may create better innovation, i.e., climate-resilient farm inputs (seeds, water-efficient measures) that will ultimately reduce the farmers’ vulnerability of climate risks.
Need for professional training
Thirdly, a considerable portion of the respondent indicated the training need of staff regarding CCA and CRM. Institutions reported that human resources generally in the non-administrative and research positions, while particularly in field operations, are in much need of training. As indicated by Roosli that stakeholders may enhance the skilled humane resource by launching a series of training and disaster management programs that may lead to effective risk management response39. This study stresses that departmental training courses could be launched where indigenous and research knowledge could be integrated. Field staff should particularly be trained regarding emergency response in extreme climate events such as excessive rains, floods, wind storms. At the same time, the researcher’s skills should be enhanced in terms of the development of climate-smart practices and modeling farm-level risks and vulnerability.
Need for enhanced support
The last indicated challenge by the public institutions was the lack of support from the higher authorities. Institutions urged the need for a shared understanding and realization of agricultural vulnerability to climate change at both policy and higher administrative levels, which may put the energy into the local level. Similar capacity recommendations were identified by Brown15, where institutions reported a need for a common understanding between the stakeholders of forest communities for effective climate response. More