Ecology

Amelung, W. et al. Towards a global-scale soil climate mitigation strategy. Nat. Commun. 11, 5427 (2020).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Blouin, M. et al. A review of earthworm impact on soil function and ecosystem services. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 64(2), 161–182. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejss.12025 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Deckmyn, G. et al. KEYLINK: Towards a more integrative soil representation for inclusion in ecosystem scale models I. Review and model concept. PeerJ 8, 9750. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.9750 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Phillips, H. R. P. et al. Global distribution of earthworm diversity. Science 366, 6464. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aax4851 (2019).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Bertrand, M. et al. Earthworm services for cropping systems. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 35, 553–567 (2015).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Angst, G. et al. Earthworms act as biochemical reactors to convert labile plant compounds into stabilized soil microbial necromass. Commun. Biol. 2, UNSP 441 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bohlen, P. J. & Edwards, C. A. Earthworm effects on N dynamics and soil respiration in microcosms receiving organic and inorganic nutrients. Soil Biol. Biochem. 27, 341–348 (1995).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Bossuyt, H., Six, J. & Hendrix, P. F. Protection of soil carbon by microaggregates within earthworm casts. Soil Biol. Biochem. 37, 251–258 (2005).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Lubbers, I. M. et al. Greenhouse-gas emissions from soils increased by earthworms. Nat. Clim. Change 3, 187–194 (2013).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Huang, W., Gonzalez, G. & Zou, X. M. Earthworm abundance and functional group diversity regulate plant litter decay and soil organic carbon level: A global meta-analysis. Appl. Soil Ecol. 150, 103473. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsoil.2019.103473 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kruck, S., Joschko, M., Schultz-Sternberg, R., Kroschewski, B. & Tessmann, J. A classification scheme for earthworm populations (Lumbricidae) in cultivated agricultural soils in Brandenburg, Germany. J. Plan Nutr. Soil Sci. 169, 651–660 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
Westernacher, E. & Raff, O. Orientation behaviour of earthworms (Lumbricidae) toward different crops. Biol. Fertil. Soils 3, 131–133 (1987).
Google Scholar 
Coppens, F., Garnier, P., Degryze, S., Merckx, R. & Recous, S. Soil moisture, carbon and nitrogen dynamics following incorporation versus surface application of labelled residues in soil columns. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 57, 894–905 (2006).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Angers, D. A. & Recous, S. Decomposition of wheat straw and rye residues as affected by particle size. Plant Soil 189, 197–203 (1997).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Iqbal, A., Garnier, P., Lashermes, G. & Recous, S. A new equation to simulate the contact between soil and maize residues of different sizes during their decomposition. Biol. Fertil. Soils 50, 645–655 (2014).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Šimek, M. & Pižl, V. Soil CO2 flux affected by Aporrectodea caliginosa earthworms. Cent. Eur. J. Biol. 5, 364–370 (2010).
Google Scholar 
Potthoff, M., Joergensenb, R. G. & Woltersc, V. Short-term effects of earthworm activity and straw amendment on the microbial C and N turnover in a remoistened arable soil after summer drought. Soil Biol. Biochem. 33, 583–591 (2001).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Bernard, L. et al. Endogeic earthworms shape bacterial functional communities and affect organic matter mineralization in a tropical soil. ISME J. 6, 213–122 (2012).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Borken, W., Gründel, S. & Beese, F. Potential contribution of Lumbricus terrestris L. to carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide fluxes from a forest soil. Biol. Fertil. Soils 32, 142–148 (2000).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Martin, A. Short-term and long-term effects of the endogeic earthworm Millsonia anomala (Omodeo) (Megascolecidae, Oligochaeta) of tropical savannas, on soil organic matter. Biol. Fertil. Soils 11, 234–238 (1991).Article 

Google Scholar 
Moreau-Valancogne, P., Bertrand, M., Holmstrup, M. & Roger-Estrade, J. Integration of thermal time and hydrotime models to describe the development and growth of temperate earthworms. Soil Biol. Biochem. 63, 50–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2013.03.022 (2013).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Lubbers, I. M., van Groenigen, K. J., Brussaard, L. & van Groenigen, J. W. Reduced greenhouse gas mitigation potential of no-tillage soils through earthworm activity. Sci. Rep. 5, 13787 (2015).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Joschko, M. et al. Spatial analysis of earthworm biodiversity at the regional scale. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 112, 367–380 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kanianska, R., Jad’ud’ova, J., Makovnikova, J. & Kizekova, M. Assessment of relationships between earthworms and soil abiotic and biotic factors as a tool in sustainable agricultural. Sustainability 8, 906 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Chertov, O. et al. Romul_Hum model of soil organic matter formation coupled with soil biota activity. III Parameterisation of earthworm activity. Ecol. Model. 345, 140–149 (2017).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Pelosi, C., Bertrand, M., Makowski, D. & Roger-Estrade, J. WORMDYN: A model of Lumbricus terrestris population dynamics in agricultural fields. Ecol. Model. 218, 219–234 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Fisk, M. C., Fahey, T. J., Groffman, P. M. & Bohlen, P. J. Earthworm invasion, fine-root distributions, and soil respiration in north temperate forests. Ecosystems 7, 55–62 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
Rizhiya, E. et al. Earthworm activity as a determinant for N2O emission from crop residue. Soil Biol. Biochem. 39, 2058–2069 (2007).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Snyder, B. A., Boots, B. & Hendrix, P. F. Competition between invasive earthworms (Amynthas corticis, Megascolecidae) and native north American millipedes (Pseudopolydesmus erasus, Polydesmidae): Effects on carbon cycling and soil structure. Soil Biol. Biochem. 41, 1442–1449 (2009).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Chapuis-Lardy, L. et al. Effect of the endogeic earthworm Pontoscolex corethrurus on the microbial structure and activity related to CO2 and N2O fluxes from a tropical soil (Madagascar). Appl. Soil Ecol. 45, 201–208 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bertora, C., van Vliet, P. C. J., Hummelink, E. W. J. & van Groenigen, J. W. Do earthworms increase N2O emissions in ploughed grassland?. Soil Biol. Biochem. 39, 632–640 (2007).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Binet, F., Fayolle, L. & Pussard, M. Significance of earthworms in stimulating soil microbial activity. Biol. Fertil. Soils 27, 79–84 (1998).Article 

Google Scholar 
Butenschoen, O. et al. Endogeic earthworms alter carbon translocation by fungi at the soil–litter interface. Soil Biol. Biochem. 39, 2854–2864 (2007).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Cortez, J., Hameed, R. & Bouche, M. B. C-transfer and N-transfer in soil with or without earthworms fed with C-14 labelled and N-15 labelled wheat straw. Soil Biol. Biochem. 21, 491–497 (1989).Article 

Google Scholar 
Marhan, S., Langel, R., Kandeler, E. & Scheu, S. Use of stable isotopes (13C) for studying the mobilisation of old soil organic carbon by endogeic earthworms (Lumbricidae). Eur. J. Soil Biol. 43, S201–S208 (2007).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Scheu, S. Effects of litter (beech and stinging nettle) and earthworms (Octolasion lacteum) on carbon and nutrient cycling in beech forests on a basalt-limestone gradient: A laboratory experiment. Biol. Fertil. Soils 24, 384–393 (1997).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Wolters, V. & Schaefer, M. Effects of burrowing by the earthworm Aporrectodea caliginosa (Savigny) on beech litter decomposition in an agricultural and in a forest soil. Geoderma 56, 627–632 (1993).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar  More

Department of Animal Biology, Faculdade de Ciências, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, PortugalCatarina Frazão SantosMARE–Marine and Environmental Sciences Center / ARNET–Aquatic Research Network, University of Lisbon, Lisbon, PortugalCatarina Frazão Santos & Carina Vieira da SilvaEnvironmental Economics Knowledge Center, NOVA-SBE, Carcavelos, PortugalCatarina Frazão Santos & Carina Vieira da SilvaSound Seas, Bethesda, MD, USATundi AgardyWorldFish, Batu Maung, Penang, MalaysiaEdward H. AllisonThe Peopled Seas Initiative, Vancouver, CanadaNathan J. BennettEqualSea Lab, University of Santiago de Compostela, A Coruña, SpainNathan J. Bennett & Sebastián VillasanteEnvironmental Sustainability Research Centre, Brock University, St. Catharines, ON, CanadaJessica L. BlytheMarine and Environmental Sciences Center, University of the Azores – FCT, Ponta Delgada, PortugalHelena CaladoHopkins Marine Station, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USALarry B. Crowder & Elena GissiARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies, Townsville, AustraliaJon C. DayQueen’s University Belfast, Belfast, Northern Ireland, UKWesley FlanneryNational Research Council, Institute of Marine Sciences, Venice, ItalyElena GissiInternational Union for Conservation of Nature and World Commission on Protected Areas, Cambridge, MA, USAKristina M. GjerdeMiddlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey, Monterey, MA, USAKristina M. GjerdeThe University of the West Indies, St. Augustine Campus, St. Augustine, Trinidad and TobagoJudith F. GobinPermanent Mission of the Federated States of Micronesia to the United Nations, New York, USAClement Yow MulalapDuke University Marine Laboratory, Duke University, Durham, NC, USAMichael OrbachCentre for Marine Socioecology, University of Tasmania, Hobart, AustraliaGretta PeclInstitute for Marine and Antarctic Studies, University of Tasmania, Hobart, AustraliaGretta PeclFederal University of Santa Catarina, Florianópolis, SC, BrazilMarinez SchererCenter for Island Sustainability and Sea Grant, University of Guam, Mangilao, USAAustin J. SheltonSchool of Geography and the Environment, University of Oxford, Oxford, UKLisa Wedding More

Arlinghaus, R., Tillner, R. & Bork, M. Explaining participation rates in recreational fishing across industrialised countries. Fisheries Management and Ecology 22, 45–55 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Cooke, S. J. & Cowx, I. G. The Role of Recreational Fishing in Global Fish Crises. BioScience 54, 857 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
World Bank. Hidden harvest: The global contribution of capture fisheries (World Bank, Washington, DC), Report 66469-GLB (2012).Nyboer, E. A. et al. Overturning stereotypes: the fuzzy boundary between recreation and subsistence in inland fisheries. Fish and Fisheries https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12688 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gupta, N. et al. Catch-and-release angling as a management tool for freshwater fish conservation in India. Oryx 50, 250–256 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bower, S. D. et al. Knowledge Gaps and Management Priorities for Recreational Fisheries in the Developing World. Reviews in Fisheries Science & Aquaculture 1–18, https://doi.org/10.1080/23308249.2020.1770689 (2020).FAO. The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture – 2016 (SOFIA). Rome, Italy (2016).Golden, C. D. et al. Aquatic foods to nourish nations. Nature https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03917-1 (2021).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Cooke, S. J. et al. The nexus of fun and nutrition: Recreational fishing is also about food. Fish and Fisheries 19, 201–224 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Joosse, S., Hensle, L., Boonstra, W. J., Ponzelar, C. & Olsson, J. Fishing in the city for food—a paradigmatic case of sustainability in urban blue space. npj Urban Sustain 1, 41, https://doi.org/10.1038/s42949-021-00043-9 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Fluet-Chouinard, E., Funge-Smith, S. & McIntyre, P. B. Global hidden harvest of freshwater fish revealed by household surveys. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 115, 7623–7628 (2018).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
FAO. The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture – 2020 (SOFIA). Rome, Italy. (2020).IPBES. Global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (Version 1). Zenodo https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3831674 (2019).Arlinghaus, R. et al. Global Participation in and Public Attitudes Toward Recreational Fishing: International Perspectives and Developments. Reviews in Fisheries Science & Aquaculture 29, 58–95 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Chan, N. “Large Ocean States”: Sovereignty, Small Islands, and Marine Protected Areas in Global Oceans Governance. Global Governance: A Review of Multilateralism and International Organizations 24, 537–555 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Arlinghaus, R. & Cooke, S. J. Recreational Fisheries: Socioeconomic Importance, Conservation Issues and Management Challenges. in Recreational Hunting, Conservation and Rural Livelihoods (eds. Dickson, B., Hutton, J. & Adams, W. M.) 39–58, https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444303179.ch3 (Wiley-Blackwell, 2009).Arlinghaus, R. et al. Opinion: Governing the recreational dimension of global fisheries. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 116, 5209–5213 (2019).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Cisneros-Montemayor, A. M. & Sumaila, U. R. A global estimate of benefits from ecosystem-based marine recreation: potential impacts and implications for management. Journal of Bioeconomics 12, 245–268 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Czarkowski, T., Wołos, A. & Kapusta, A. Socio-economic portrait of Polish anglers and its implications for recreational fisheries management in freshwater bodies. Aquatic Living Resources 19, 14, https://doi.org/10.1051/alr/2021018 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Dill, W. A. Inland Fisheries of Europe. Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (1993).Baigún, C., Oldani, N., Madirolas, A. & Colombo, G. A. Assessment of Fish Yield in Patagonian Lakes (Argentina): Development and Application of Empirical Models. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 136, 846–857 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
Vigliano, P. H., Bechara, J., & Quiros, R. Allocation policies and its implications for recreational fisheries management in inland waters of Argentina. Sharing the Fish ‘06, 210 (2006).Henry, G. W., & Lyle, J. M. National recreational and indigenous fishing survey. (2003).Murphy J. J. et al. Survey of recreational fishing in NSW, 2019/20 – Key Results. Fisheries Final Report Series No. 161. Department of Primary Industries, New South Wales. 180 pp. (2022).Aas, Øystein, ed. Global challenges in recreational fisheries. (John Wiley & Sons, 2008).DoF. Yearbook of Fisheries Statistics of Bangladesh, 2017-18. Fisheries Resources Survey System (FRSS), Department of Fisheries. Bangladesh: Ministry of Fisheries. 35: p. 129 (2018).Mozumder, M., Uddin, M., Schneider, P., Islam, M. & Shamsuzzaman, M. Fisheries-Based Ecotourism in Bangladesh: Potentials and Challenges. Resources 7, 61 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Craig, John F., ed. Freshwater fisheries ecology. (John Wiley & Sons, 2016).Barkhuizen, L. M., Weyl, O. L. F. & Van As, J. G. An assessment of recreational bank angling in the Free State Province, South Africa, using licence sale and tournament data. WSA 43, 442 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Treer, T. & Kubatov, I. The co-existence of recreational and artisanal fisheries in the central parts of the Danube and Sava rivers. Croatian Journal of Fisheries 75(3), 116–127 (2017).
Google Scholar 
Freire, K. M. F., Machado, M. L. & Crepaldi, D. Overview of Inland Recreational Fisheries in Brazil. Fisheries 37, 484–494 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Freire, K. M. F. et al. Brazilian recreational fisheries: current status, challenges and future direction. Fish Manag Ecol 23, 276–290, https://doi.org/10.1111/fme.12171 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Survey of Recreational Fishing in Canada, 2015. 26 (2019).Arismendi, I. & Nahuelhual, L. Non-native Salmon and Trout Recreational Fishing in Lake Llanquihue, Southern Chile: Economic Benefits and Management Implications. Reviews in Fisheries Science 15, 311–325 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lyach, R., & Čech, M. Differences in fish harvest, fishing effort, and angling guard activities between urban and natural fishing grounds. Urban Ecosystems, 1–13 (2019).Lyach, R. The effect of fishing effort, fish stocking, and population density of overwintering cormorants on the harvest and recapture rates of three rheophilic fish species in central Europe. Fisheries Research 223, 105440 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lyach, R. The effect of a large-scale angling restriction in minimum angling size on harvest rates, recapture rates, and average body weight of harvested common carps Cyprinus carpio. Fisheries Research 223, 105438 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lyach, R. & Remr, J. Changes in recreational catfish Silurus glanis harvest rates between years 1986–2017 in Central Europe. Journal of Applied Ichthyology 35(5), 1094:1104 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lyach, R. & Remr, J. Does harvest of the European grayling, Thymallus thymallus (Actinopterygii: Salmoniformes: Salmonidae), change over time with different intensity of fish stocking and fishing effort? Acta Ichthyol. Piscat. 50(1), 53–62 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lyach, R. & Remr, J. The effects of environmental factors and fisheries management on recreational catches of perch Perca fluviatilis in the Czech Republic. Aquatic Living Resources 32, 15, https://doi.org/10.1051/alr/2019013 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Rasmussen, G. & Geertz‐Hansen, P. Fisheries management in inland and coastal waters in Denmark from 1987 to 1999. Fisheries Management and Ecology 8(4‐5), 311–322 (2001).
Google Scholar 
Armulik, T. & Sirp, S. Estonian Fishery 2018. (2019).Welcomme, R. Review of the State of the World Fishery Resources: Inland Fisheries. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Circular No. 942, Rev. 2. Rome, FAO. 97 pp. (2011).West Greenland Commission, 2020 Report on the Salmon Fishery in Greenland. 8 (2020).Guðbergsson, G. Catch statistics for Atlantic salmon, Arctic char and brown trout in Icelandic rivers and lakes 2013. Institute of Freshwater Fisheries, Iceland Report VMST/14045 (2014).Inland Fisheries Ireland. Wild Salmon and Sea Trout Statistics Report. IFI/2020/1-4513 (2019).Vycius, J. & Radzevicius, A. Fishery and Fishculture Challenges in Lithuania. International Journal of Water Resources Development 25(1), 81–94, https://doi.org/10.1080/07900620802576240 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bacal, P., Jeleapov, A., Burduja, V. D., & Moroz, I. State and use of lakes from central region of the Republic of Moldova. Present Environment and Sustainable Development, (2), 141–156 (2019).Moroccan Ministry of Fisheries, Annual Report of Fisheries and Fish Farming in Inland Waters, Season 2020/2021 (2021).Centre for Fisheries Research. Recreational fisheries in the Netherlands: Analyses of the 2017 screening survey and the 2016–2017 logbook survey. CVO report: 18.025 (2019).Dedual, M. & Rohan, M. Long‐term trends in the catch characteristics of rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss, in a self‐sustained recreational fishery, Tongariro River, New Zealand. Fisheries Management and Ecology 23(3-4), 234–242 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Unwin, M.J. Angler usage of New Zealand lake and river fisheries. National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (2016).Ipinmoroti, M. O. & Ayanboye, O. Biological and socioeconomic viability of recreational fisheries of two Nigerian lakes. IIFET 2012 Tanzania Proceedings (2012).Amaral, S., Ferreira, M.T., Cravo, M.T. Resultado do ‘Inquérito aos Pescadores Desportivos de Áquas Intenores” realizado pela Direcção Geral das Florestas em 1998 a 1999. Pesca Desportivos em Albufeiras do Centro e Sul de Portugal: Contribuição para a reduçao da eutrofização. Instituto Superior de Agronomia. Autoridade Florestal Nacional. Lisboa: III.1-III.53. (2010).Povž, M., Šumer, S. & Leiner, S. Sport fishing catch as an indicator of population size of the Danube roach Rutilus pigus virgo in Slovenia (Cyprinidae). Italian Journal of Zoology 65(S1), 545–548 (1998).Article 

Google Scholar 
Embke, H. S., Beard, T. D., Lynch, A. J. & Vander Zanden, M. J. Fishing for Food: Quantifying Recreational Fisheries Harvest in Wisconsin Lakes. Fisheries fsh.10486, https://doi.org/10.1002/fsh.10486 (2020).Karimov, B. et al. Inland capture fisheries and aquaculture in the Republic of Uzbekistan: current status and planning. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Circular. No. 1030/1. Rome, FAO. 124 p. (2009).Magqina, T., Nhiwatiwa, T., Dalu, M. T., Mhlanga, L. & Dalu, T. Challenges and possible impacts of artisanal and recreational fisheries on tigerfish Hydrocynus vittatus Castelnau 1861 populations in Lake Kariba, Zimbabwe. Scientific African 10, e00613 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Embke, H. S. Global dataset of species-specific inland recreational fisheries harvest for consumption. U.S. Geological Survey https://doi.org/10.5066/P9904C3R (2022).Amano, T., González-Varo, J. P. & Sutherland, W. J. Languages are still a major barrier to global science. PLoS biology 14(12), e2000933 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Cooke, S. J. et al. Recreational fisheries in inland waters. In J. F. Craig (Ed.) Freshwater Fisheries Ecology. John Wiley and Sons Ltd. (2016). More

Pan, Y. et al. Science 333, 988–993 (2011).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Bonan, G. B. Science 320, 1444–1449 (2008).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Craine, J. M. et al. Nature Ecol. Evol. 2, 1735–1744 (2018).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Cunha, H. F. V. et al. Nature 608, 558–562 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Vitousek, P. M. & Sanford, R. L. Jr Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 17, 137–167 (1986).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hedin, L. O., Brookshire, E. N. J., Menge, D. N. L. & Barron, A. R. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 40, 613–635 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ostertag, R. & DiManno, N. M. Front. Earth Sci. 4, 23 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wright, S. J. Ecol. Monogr. 89, e01382 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lugli, L. F. et al. New Phytol. 230, 116–128 (2021).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Muller-Landau, H. C. et al. New Phytol. 229, 3065–3087 (2021).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
He, X. et al. Earth Syst. Sci. Data 13, 5831–5846 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Elser, J. J. et al. Ecol. Lett. 10, 1135–1142 (2007).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
LeBauer, D. S. & Treseder, K. K. Ecology 89, 371–379 (2008).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Arora, V. K. et al. Biogeosciences 17, 4173–4222 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
IPCC. Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (eds Masson-Delmotte, V. et al.) (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2021).
Google Scholar  More

German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv) Halle–Jena–Leipzig, Leipzig, GermanyStephanie D. Jurburg, Nico Eisenhauer, François Buscot, Antonis Chatzinotas, Narendrakumar M. Chaudhari, Anna Heintz-Buschart, Kirsten Küsel & Rine C. ReubenInstitute of Biology, Leipzig University, Leipzig, GermanyStephanie D. Jurburg, Nico Eisenhauer, Antonis Chatzinotas & Rine C. ReubenDepartment of Environmental Microbiology, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research–UFZ, Leipzig, GermanyStephanie D. Jurburg, Antonis Chatzinotas, Rene Kallies, Susann Müller & Ulisses Nunes da RochaDepartment of Soil Ecology, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research–UFZ, Halle, GermanyFrançois Buscot & Anna Heintz-BuschartAquatic Geomicrobiology, Institute of Biodiversity, Friedrich Schiller University, Jena, GermanyNarendrakumar M. Chaudhari & Kirsten KüselSwammerdam Institute for Life Sciences, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the NetherlandsAnna Heintz-BuschartKellogg Biological Station, Michigan State University, Hickory Corners, MI, USAElena LitchmanEcology, Evolution and Behavior Program, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USAElena LitchmanDepartment of Global Ecology, Carnegie Institution for Science, Stanford, CA, USAElena LitchmanHawkesbury Institute for the Environment, Western Sydney University, Richmond, New South Wales, AustraliaCatriona A. Macdonald & Brajesh K. SinghLeibniz Institute for Natural Product Research and Infection Biology—Hans Knöll Institute, Jena, GermanyGianni PanagiotouThe State Key Laboratory of Pharmaceutical Biotechnology, The University of Hong Kong, Kowloon, Hong Kong SAR, ChinaGianni PanagiotouDepartment of Medicine, The University of Hong Kong, Kowloon, Hong Kong SAR, ChinaGianni PanagiotouInstitut für Biologie, Freie Universität Berlin, Berlin, GermanyMatthias C. RilligBerlin-Brandenburg Institute of Advanced Biodiversity Research, Berlin, GermanyMatthias C. RilligGlobal Centre for Land-Based Innovation, Western Sydney University, Penrith, New South Wales, AustraliaBrajesh K. SinghB.K.S. conceived the idea in consultation with N.E. and S.J., and led the discussion which was attended by all authors. S.J. and B.K.S. wrote the manuscript and all contributed to refine it. More

Settele, J. et al. in Climate Change 2014 Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects (eds Field, C. et al.) 271–360 (IPCC, Cambridge Univ. Press, 2015).
Google Scholar 
Rees, W. G. et al. Glob. Change Biol. 26, 3965–3977 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Anderson, L. L., Hu, F. S., Nelson, D. S., Petit, R. J. & Paige, K. N. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 103, 12447–12450 (2006).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Clark, J. S., Lewis, M. & Horvath, L. Am. Nat. 157, 537–554 (2001).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Edwards, M., Hamilton, T. D., Elias, S. A., Bigelow, N. H. & Krumhardt, A. P. Arct. Antarct. Alp. Res. 35, 460–468 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar  More

Dow, C. et al. Nature 608, 552–557 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Friedlingstein, P. et al. Earth Syst. Sci. Data 12, 3269–3340 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Menzel, A. & Fabian, P. Nature 397, 659 (1999).Article 

Google Scholar 
Piao, S. et al. Nature Rev. Earth Environ. 1, 14–27 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Cuny, H. E. et al. Nature Plants 1, 15160 (2015).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Körner, C. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol. 25, 107–114 (2015).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Gessler, A. & Treydte, K. New Phytol. 209, 1338–1340 (2016).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Hilty, J., Muller, B., Pantin, F. & Leuzinger, S. New Phytol. 232, 25–41 (2021).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Jiang, M. et al. Nature 580, 227–231 (2020).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Guillemot, J. et al. New Phytol. 214, 180–193 (2017).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Fatichi, S., Pappas, C., Zscheischler, J. & Leuzinger, S. New Phytol. 221, 652–668 (2019).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Friend, A. D. et al. Annu. For. Sci. 76, 49 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Zuidema, P. A., Poulter, B. & Frank, D. C. Trends Plant Sci. 23, 1006–1015 (2018).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Martínez-Sancho, E., Treydte, K., Lehmann, M. M., Rigling, A. & Fonti, P. New Phytol. https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.18224 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar  More

The procedure began by obtaining the boundaries of Brazil’s municipalities, which are the most precise spatial reference units available from the Brazilian Ministry of Health of data records on diseases and health events. The boundaries were obtained from the geographic database of the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics (IBGE)11, corresponding to the territorial grid of 2015, with a total of 5,570 Brazilian municipalities.A broad and diverse set of thematic data was used to compose the datasets, spanning a range of time periods (from 1981 to 2021) according to the temporal regularity of individual layers (annual, quinquennial, atemporal, or without temporal regularity), thus covering spatial and temporal variations over Brazil’s territory. It is worth noticing that during the period of 1981 to 2021 the number of municipalities grew from 3991 to 557012, which of course led to major changes to their boundaries, in addition to the creation of the state of Tocantins in 1988 as a result of the division of the state of Goiás13. Most of the changes, though, are subdivisions of one municipality into two or more municipalities. To provide statistics that are invariant over the period we would have to resort to using clusters of municipalities (“artificial municipalities”) by means of the Minimum Comparable Areas (MCA) strategy14. Due to the time-consuming process we preferred to characterize only the current territorial division, thus providing the most refined statistical characterization of Brazil’s municipalities. Still, one can find it useful to aggregate our characterization according to an MCA territorial division; for that we refer the reader to the article by Ehrl14.A total of 19 thematic layers were used, obtained from different Brazilian government and international agencies (Tables 1 and 2, illustrated by Figs. 1–4). Each layer may have multiple thematic classes or variables, depending on the nature of the theme, totaling 642 thematic classes or variables. For each class, 18 descriptive statistics were calculated (9 raw statistics plus 9 normalized by municipality’s area–Table 3) for all the available years, totaling 11,556 attributes per municipality.Table 1 Thematic layers comprising the dataset collection.Full size tableTable 2 Original data format, resulting geometry, unit and scale/resolution of the thematic layers.Full size tableFig. 1Examples of thematic layers with annual temporality in the territorial extension of the municipality of Rio de Janeiro.Full size imageFig. 2Examples of atemporal and no temporal regularity thematic layers in the territorial extension of the municipality of Rio de Janeiro.Full size imageFig. 3Examples of bioclimatic variables from Worldclim in the territorial extension of the municipality of Rio de Janeiro.Full size imageFig. 4Climate data for total precipitation, maximum, mean and minimum temperature from Worldclim in the territorial extension of the municipality of Rio de Janeiro for the month of January.Full size imageTable 3 Statistics calculated for the features/variables in the scope of the municipalities.Full size tableThe annual thematic layers for land use and land cover include 25 thematic classes from 1985 to 2020 for the entire Brazilian territory with spatial resolution of 30 m. (Except for the Fernando de Noronha archipelago, municipality geocode 260545, for which there is no land user/cover data due to the absence of historical series Landsat satellite images for that region.) These layers were produced and made available by the online platform MapBiomas15, collection 6.0. Annual land use and land cover maps were produced via automatic classification processes applied to Landsat satellite images16. The MapBiomas Project is a multi-institutional initiative coordinated by the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Estimation System (SEEG) from the Climate Observatory’s and consists of a collaborative network of cocreators including nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), universities, and companies. The objective is to produce annual land cover and land use maps of Brazil from 1985 to the present.The annual temperature and precipitation layers include 19 different types of data from 1981 to 2020 for the entire land surface, with spatial resolution of 5 km (0.05°). These fields were derived from two different observational gridded datasets, one for precipitation and another for temperature. The observed precipitation came from the Climate Hazards Group Infrared Precipitation with Stations data (CHIRPS)17, with a daily temporal resolution and a spatial resolution of approximately 5 km (0.05°). The observed temperature drawn from the NCEP Climate Forecast System Reanalysis (NCEP/CFSR)18 at a 6-hour temporal resolution and a spatial resolution of approximately 50 km (0.5°). The NCEP/CFSR gridded dataset was spatially downscaled to a higher spatial resolution of 5 km (0.05°) using bilinear interpolation in order to have the same spatial resolution as CHIRPS. (As with land use and land cover, there is no temperature/precipitation data for the Fernando de Noronha archipelago (geocode 260545).)The quinquennial layers for Population Count and Population Density were obtained from the Socioeconomic Data and Applications Center (SEDAC)19 through NASA’s Earth Observing System Data and Information System (EOSDIS), and is hosted by the Center for International Earth Science Information Network (CIESIN) at Columbia University. This dataset estimates the population count for the years 2000, 2005, 2010, 2015 and 2020, based on national censuses and population records, and is available in raster graphics with spatial resolution of 1 km. The official population demographics data from IBGE census is not used because it is available only as a tabular data aggregate count per census sector or municipality and therefore cannot yield meaningful descriptive statistics.Atemporal data include the following themes: Climatological Normals for Temperature; Altitude; Geomorphology; Soils; Phytophysiognomies; and Biome boundaries. Climatological Normals for Temperature came from Worldclim20 and correspond to observational data, representative of 1950 to 2000, which were interpolated to a resolution of 1 km. These temperature values are in degree Celsius, but for historical reasons they are scaled by a factor of 10. The used mean, minimum and maximum values of temperature include information from different remote sensors onboard the MODIS and NOAA satellites which operate to jointly capture surface temperature and air humidity values. Besides the annual temperature data, we also included climatological normal data because they provide monthly mean values for temperature. These values complement the annual information (considerably influenced by climate events like El Niño and La Niña) and serve as an important reference on seasonal temperature variation patterns, a factor that directly influences the reproduction and survival dynamics of species such as vectors. The altitude data came from NASA’s Shuttle Radar Topography Mission digital elevation model (SRTM) 1 ArcSecond Global, conceived to provide consistent high-quality near-global elevation data21. The original data are radar images with spatial resolution of 30 m, version 3, reprocessed to fix inconsistencies and fill missing data (“voids”). The other themes–Geomorphology, Soils, Phytophysiognomies, and Biome boundaries–were obtained from IBGE22. These provides regional details, and were constructed from interpretation of satellite images and various field studies throughout Brazil beginning in 199023.The layers without temporal regularity include: Mining Areas; Roads; Railways; Waterways or watercourses; Hydroelectric Plants; Dams; Conservation Units; Indigenous Lands; and Zone Climates and Regional Subunits. The Mining Areas layer has 336 classes, representing the different types of minerals explored in Brazil’s territory, provided by the Brazilian National Mining Agency (ANM). The boundaries of Conservation Units were provided by the Brazilian Ministry of Environment (MMA). The other layers are single classes of Roads, Railways, Waterways/watercourses, Hydroelectric Plants, Dams, obtained from the Continuous Cartographic Bases24 and Indigenous lands and Quilombola territories25, all this datasets from IBGE. The roads category comprises all its available classifications, covering data from subcategories such as highways and dirt roads. The same unification was adopted for the railways and waterways categories. The layer on Zone Climates and Regional Subunits represents the different climate zones in Brazil’s territory, grouped by temperature and humidity. This layer also identifies the climate types, characterized by shades and hues: tropical, subtropical, mild mesothermal, and median mesothermal26.Considering the heterogeneity of the data sources and the structural particularities of the thematic layers acquired, it was essential to conduct a pre-processing and structuring stage with the datasets in order to proceed with the calculation of the descriptive statistics. All the raw data, whose total size amounted to 195 GB, were pre-processed in QGIS v3.1027. This stage required standardizing the geospatial data’s cartographic characteristics, correcting topological errors, eliminating duplicate information, and uniformizing the attribute tables. The data were generally organized in two major groups: vector data and matrix data (raster).To be able to process the Land Use and Land Cover features at the original 30 m spatial resolution, we had first to break down each annual raster (1985 to 2020) into 5,569 smaller raster pieces, one for each municipality, by using the gdalwarp tool from the Geospatial Data Abstraction Library (GDAL). Next, we converted all the resulting rasters to vector format (geopackage) via the script gdal_polygonize.py, also from GDAL. The conversion was necessary because the vector format (geopackage) allowed the calculation of the polygons’ statistics for all the Land Use and Land Cover features, which is not possible with the raster format with the techniques and functions used (described in the Code availability section). All that pre-processing took about 600 hours running in parallel on an Intel Core i7 computer with 8 physical CPU cores and 64 GB of RAM.The data on Temperature, Precipitation, Population Count/Density, Altitude, and Climatological Normals, also provided in matrix format, were converted to point geometry, since they are inherently points but which had been interpolated by their sources before making them available. The conversion of Altitude from raster to vector was the most computationally demanding operation due to the need to process 10.6 billion points (spread across 821 tiles of 3601 × 3601 points each) at the resolution of 30 m. It took about one month of uninterrupted parallel processing on a 20-core Intel Xeon E5-2690 machine with 128 GB of RAM.For the vector data, it was first necessary to homogenize the cartographic references using South America Albers Equal Area Conic (EPSG:102033) for data requiring calculation of areas (polygons), South America Equidistant Conic (EPSG:102032) for data requiring calculation of distances (lines), and SIRGAS 2000 Geodetic Reference (EPSG:4674) for data with restricted localization (points)28. It was also necessary to correct some topological errors in the vector data regarding the line and polygon geometries, which are artifacts introduced during the data construction/vectorization stage. The vector data correspond to the following themes: Geomorphology; Soils; Phytophysiognomies; Biome Boundaries; Mining Areas; Roads; Railways; Waterways or watercourses; Hydroelectric Plants; Dams; Conservation Units; Indigenous lands and Quilombola territories; Zone Climates and Regional Subunits.For the statistical description of the municipalities’ socioenvironmental characteristics, we calculated the measures of central tendency such as mean and median, and measures of dispersion such as maximum and minimum values, standard deviation, and percentiles. For each descriptive statistic we also calculated a corresponding normalized statistic, simply dividing the original statistics value by the municipality’s area. The values were normalized due to the wide variation in the territorial area of Brazil’s municipalities. For example, Altamira, in the state of Pará, is Brazil’s largest municipality, with an area of 159,533 km2, while Santa Cruz de Minas, in the state of Minas Gerais, is the smallest one, with only 3,565 km2 29. This wide territorial variability might otherwise skew the modeling towards the identification of distorted correlations, such as the identification of relations between higher proportions of natural or anthropic features and higher concentration of cases, which is merely due to the municipality’s larger territorial dimensions.Based on structuring of the graphic, we executed a spatial data intersection with the municipal boundaries by means of different routines from PostGIS30, an extension that adds spatial and geographic objects to the PostgreSQL object-relational database.Calculation of the descriptive statisticsThe meaning of the statistics described in Table 3 actually depends on both feature’s geometry and unit of measurement, which are reported in Table 2 for each thematic layer.For polygons, such as conservation units, the area of each unit is computed in square meters and the set of all conservation units’ areas in the municipality forms the statistical population upon which the descriptive statistics will be calculated for that municipality. This means that the minimum statistic will refer to the smallest area among the conservation units in the municipality, the mean statistic to the average area, the count statistic will refer to the number of conservation units in the municipality, and so forth. Analogously, when the feature type is line, e.g. roads, the set of all road stretches’ lengths (in meters) is the statistical population.The procedure differs a bit for point features, such as altitude and temperature. In this case, except for the count statistic (which refers to the number of points in the municipality), the actual value at each feature point is taken; for instance, the altitude and temperature at a given location. Differently from the polygons and line cases, the associated unit cannot be predefined (in square meters or meters), and it will depend on the actual unit of the underlying layer–for altitude it is meters, but for temperature it could be either Celsius or Kelvin. Some point-type features, such as hydroelectric plants, do not have a unit per se, i.e. they merely refer to a quantity. Once the set of all point-type feature values are taken, we have a statistical population of values and the calculation of the statistics proceeds exactly as described with the other two feature types.For each descriptive statistic, there is a corresponding normalized one which is calculated by dividing the statistic by the municipality’s area (in m2). Those normalized statistics complement the set of descriptive information and provide the notion of proportion or density. As an example, the statistic sum_normalized corresponds to the percentage of occupation of a given polygon-type thematic layer in the municipality, or an estimation of density for line-type layers such as roads. More