Ecology

Resco de Dios et al. claim that the modulation of ENSO on fire in China is weak. They base their claim on the insignificant correlations they find between gridded area and ENSO indices on individual grid points in China. Unlike their analysis of individual grid points, our analyses were based on the covariance of data on these grid points. Combining all grid points, our correlation analysis increases the degree of freedom, raises the likelihood of a significance test, and therefore is reliable and robust. Fire in individual grid points can be noisy on a local scale, while climate plays a more critical role in modulating large-scale fires.Many previous studies revealed the dominant impacts of ENSO in different regions of China7, 8. Resco de Dios et al. stated that the ENSO could only influence the ignitions and thus has little effect on fire activity. In fact, fuel availability and flammability are also key factors in fire occurrence, particularly for large-scale fires9. This is evidenced by the strong correlations between fire occurrence and interannual climate variability.China’s fire policy not only suppresses existing fires but also prevents human-ignited fire occurrences. As revealed in previous studies, the fire suppression policy since 1987 decreased not only burnt areas but also fire occurrences10.The study by Resco de Dios et al. was based on MODIS-derived annual area burned, which differs from our ground-truthed WFAC fire occurrence dataset. The MODIS cannot sufficiently distinguish the wildfire from the frequent crop fires and thus vastly misinterrupt the crop fires as wildfire, especially over the northern plains where forests are rare. Here, we show that the EOF analyses of the WFAC can also reveal the dipole fire pattern between southwestern and southeastern China. We highlight that the dipole fire pattern and ENSO modulation are on large scales. The fire control policy not only suppresses existing fires but also prevents human-ignited fire occurrences, and thus plays an effective role in reducing five activities in China. More

Lindgren, A., Hugelius, G. & Kuhry, P. Extensive loss of past permafrost carbon but a net accumulation into present-day soils. Nature 560, 219–222 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Nichols, J. E. & Peteet, D. M. Rapid expansion of northern peatlands and doubled estimate of carbon storage. Nat. Geosci. 12, 917–921 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bridgham, S. D. et al. The carbon balance of North American wetlands. Wetlands 26, 889–916 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
Dixon, M. J. R. et al. Tracking global change in ecosystem area: the wetland extent trends index. Biol. Conserv. 193, 27–35 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Darrah, S. E. et al. Improvements to the Wetland Extent Trends (WET) index as a tool for monitoring natural and human-made wetlands. Ecol. Indic. 99, 294–298 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Asselen, S. et al. Drivers of wetland conversion: a global meta-analysis. PLoS ONE 8, e81292 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Davidson, N. C. How much wetland has the world lost? Long-term and recent trends in global wetland area. Mar. Freshw. Res. 65, 934–941 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Galatowitsch, S. M. in The Wetland Book II: Distribution, Description, and Conservation (eds Finlayson, C.M. et al.) 359–367 (Springer, 2018).Limpert, K. E. et al. Reducing emissions from degraded floodplain wetlands. Front. Environ. Sci. 8, 8 (2020); https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2020.00008Laine, J. et al. Effect of water-level drawdown on global climatic warming: northern peatlands. AMBIO 25, 179–184 (1996).
Google Scholar 
Ise, T. et al. High sensitivity of peat decomposition to climate change through water-table feedback. Nat. Geosci. 1, 763–766 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Saunois, M. et al. The global methane budget 2000–2017. Earth. Syst. Sci. Data 12, 1561–1623 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Leifeld, J. et al. Intact and managed peatland soils as a source and sink of GHGs from 1850 to 2100. Nat. Clim. Change 9, 945–947 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Günther, A. et al. Prompt rewetting of drained peatlands reduces climate warming despite methane emissions. Nat. Commun. 11, 1644 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hooijer, A. et al. Subsidence and carbon loss in drained tropical peatlands. Biogeoscience 9, 1053–1071 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Prananto, J. A. et al. Drainage increases CO2 and N2O emissions from tropical peat soils. Glob. Change Biol. 26, 4583–4600 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Jauhiainen, J. et al. Carbon dioxide and methane fluxes in drained tropical peat before and after hydrological restoration. Ecology 89, 3503–3514 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bridgham, S. D. et al. Methane emissions from wetlands: biogeochemical, microbial, and modeling perspectives from local to global scales. Glob. Change Biol. 19, 1325–1346 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Schuldt, R. et al. Modelling Holocene carbon accumulation and methane emissions of boreal wetlands—an Earth system model approach. Biogeosciences 10, 1659–1674 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
McNicol, G. et al. Effects of seasonality, transport pathway, and spatial structure on greenhouse gas fluxes in a restored wetland. Glob. Change Biol. 23, 2768–2782 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Yu, K. et al. Redox window with minimum global warming potential contribution from rice soils. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 68, 2086–2091 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
Huang, Y. et al. Tradeoff of CO2 and CH4 emissions from global peatlands under water-table drawdown. Nat. Clim. Change 11, 618–622 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ojanen, P. & Minkkinen, K. Rewetting offers rapid climate benefits for tropical and agricultural peatlands but not for forestry‐drained peatlands. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 34, e2019GB006503 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Evans, C. D. et al. Overriding water table control on managed peatland greenhouse gas emissions. Nature 593, 548–552 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Strack, M., Keith, A. M. & Xu, B. Growing season carbon dioxide and methane exchange at a restored peatland on the Western Boreal Plain. Ecol. Eng. 64, 231–239 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Karki, S. et al. Carbon balance of rewetted and drained peat soils used for biomass production: a mesocosm study. Glob. Change Biol. Bioenergy 8, 969–980 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Whiting, G. J. & Chanton, J. P. Greenhouse carbon balance of wetlands: methane emission versus carbon sequestration. Tellus B 53, 521–528 (2001).
Google Scholar 
Moore, T. R. et al. A multi-year record of methane flux at the Mer Bleue Bog, Southern Canada. Ecosystems 14, 646–657 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Zhu, X. et al. Ammonia oxidation pathways and nitrifier denitrification are significant sources of N2O and NO under low oxygen availability. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110, 6328–6333 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Cole, J. J. et al. Plumbing the global carbon cycle: integrating inland waters into the terrestrial carbon budget. Ecosystems 10, 171–184 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
Holgerson, M. A. & Raymond, P. A. Large contribution to inland water CO2 and CH4 emissions from very small ponds. Nat. Geosci. 9, 222–226 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Raymond, P. A. et al. Global carbon dioxide emissions from inland waters. Nature 503, 355–359 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Rosentreter, J. A. et al. Half of global methane emissions come from highly variable aquatic ecosystem sources. Nat. Geosci. 14, 225–230 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lehner, B. & Döll, P. Development and validation of a global database of lakes, reservoirs and wetlands. J. Hydrol. 296, 1–22 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
Schuur, E. A. et al. The effect of permafrost thaw on old carbon release and net carbon exchange from tundra. Nature 459, 556–559 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Delgado-Baquerizo, M. et al. Climate legacies drive global soil carbon stocks in terrestrial ecosystems. Sci. Adv. 3, e1602008 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hengl, T. et al. SoilGrids250m: global gridded soil information based on machine learning. PLoS ONE 12, e0169748 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Walker, X. J. et al. Increasing wildfires threaten historic carbon sink of boreal forest soils. Nature 572, 520–523 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Baird, A. J. et al. Validity of managing peatlands with fire. Nat. Geosci. 12, 884–885 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ritchie, H., Roser, M. & Rosado, P. CO2 and GHG Emissions: Atmospheric Concentrations (Our World in Data, 2020); https://ourworldindata.org/atmospheric-concentrations#citationFriedlingstein, P. et al. Global carbon budget 2019. Earth Syst. Sci. Data 11, 1783–1838 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Tian, H. et al. A comprehensive quantification of global nitrous oxide sources and sinks. Nature 586, 248–256 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Cook-Patton, S. C. et al. Mapping carbon accumulation potential from global natural forest regrowth. Nature 585, 545–550 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Jaenicke, J. et al. Planning hydrological restoration of peatlands in Indonesia to mitigate carbon dioxide emissions. Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Glob. Change 15, 223–239 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wohl, E. Landscape-scale carbon storage associated with beaver dams. Geophys. Res. Lett. 40, 3631–3636 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Law, A. et al. Using ecosystem engineers as tools in habitat restoration and rewilding: beaver and wetlands. Sci. Total Environ. 605–606, 1021–1030 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Brown, L. E. et al. Macroinvertebrate community assembly in pools created during peatland restoration. Sci. Total Environ. 569, 361–372 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Finlayson, C. M. & Rea, N. Reasons for the loss and degradation of Australian wetlands. Wetl. Ecol. Manage. 7, 1–11 (1999).Article 

Google Scholar 
Liu, J. et al. Water conservancy projects in China: achievements, challenges and way forward. Glob. Environ. Change 23, 633–643 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Rogelj, J. et al. in Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 °C (eds Masson-Delmotte, V. et al.) Ch. 2 (IPCC, WMO, 2018).Svensson, B. H. & Rosswall, T. In situ methane production from acid peat in plant communities with different moisture regimes in a subarctic mire. Oikos 43, 341–350 (1984).Article 

Google Scholar 
Waddington, J. M. & Roulet, N. T. Atmosphere–wetland carbon exchanges: scale dependency of CO2 and CH4 exchange on the developmental topography of a peatland. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 10, 233–245 (1996).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kling, G. W. et al. The flux of CO2 and CH4 from lakes and rivers in Arctic Alaska. Hydrobiologia 240, 23–36 (1992).Article 

Google Scholar 
Humphreys, E. R. et al. Two bogs in the Canadian Hudson Bay lowlands and a temperate bog reveal similar annual net ecosystem exchange of CO2. Arct. Antarct. Alp. Res. 46, 103–113 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Caffrey, J. M. Factors controlling net ecosystem metabolism in US estuaries. Estuaries 27, 90–101 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
Roberts, B. J. et al. Multiple scales of temporal variability in ecosystem metabolism rates: results from 2 years of continuous monitoring in a forested headwater stream. Ecosystems 10, 588–606 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
Myhre, G. et al. in Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis (eds Stocker, T.F. et al.) 710–714 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2013).Glenn, A. J. et al. Comparison of net ecosystem CO2 exchange in two peatlands in western Canada with contrasting dominant vegetation, Sphagnum and Carex. Agric. For. Meteorol. 140, 115–135 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bond-Lamberty, B. & Thomson, A. Temperature-associated increases in the global soil respiration record. Nature 464, 579–582 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Zhao, J. et al. Intensified inundation shifts a freshwater wetland from a CO2 sink to a source. Glob. Change Biol. 25, 3319–3333 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
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, 55006 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Peng, Z. & Peng, G. Suitability mapping of global wetland areas and validation with remotely sensed data. Sci. China Earth Sci. 57, 2883–2892 (2014).
Google Scholar 
Zhang, B. et al. Methane emissions from global wetlands: an assessment of the uncertainty associated with various wetland extent data sets. Atmos. Environ. 165, 310–321 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gumbricht, T. et al. An expert system model for mapping tropical wetlands and peatlands reveals South America as the largest contributor. Glob. Change Biol. 23, 3581–3599 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
ERA5 Monthly Averaged Data on Pressure Levels from 1979 to Present (ECMWF, 2020); https://doi.org/10.24381/cds.6860a573FAOSTAT Emissions Database (FAO, 2020); http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/GTQiu, C. et al. Large historical carbon emissions from cultivated northern peatlands. Sci. Adv. 7, eabf1332 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Frolking, S., Roulet, N. & Fuglestvedt, J. How northern peatlands influence the Earth’s radiative budget: sustained methane emission versus sustained carbon sequestration. J. Geophys. Res. Biogeosci. 111, G01008 (2006).
Google Scholar 
Neubauer, S. C. & Megonigal, J. P. Moving beyond global warming potentials to quantify the climatic role of ecosystems. Ecosystems 18, 1000–1013 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Matthews, E. & Fung, I. Methane emission from natural wetlands: global distribution, area, and environmental characteristics of sources. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 1, 61–86 (1987).Article 

Google Scholar 
Melton, J. R. et al. Present state of global wetland extent and wetland methane modelling: conclusions from a model inter-comparison project (WETCHIMP). Biogeosciences 10, 753–788 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Papa, F. et al. Interannual variability of surface water extent at the global scale, 1993–2004. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 115, D12111 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Junk, W. J. et al. Current state of knowledge regarding the world’s wetlands and their future under global climate change: a synthesis. Aquat. Sci. 75, 151–167 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Schroeder, R. et al. Development and evaluation of a multi-year fractional surface water data set derived from active/passive microwave remote sensing data. Remote Sens. 7, 16688–16732 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Vanessa, R. et al. A global assessment of inland wetland conservation status. Bioscience 6, 523–533 (2017).
Google Scholar 
Davidson, N. et al. Global extent and distribution of wetlands: trends and issues. Mar. Freshw. Res. 69, 620–627 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
ArcWorld 1:3 M. Continental Coverage (ESRI, 1992); http://www.oceansatlas.org/subtopic/en/c/593/Digital Chart of the World 1:1 M (ESRI, 1993); https://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/topo/report/s5/s5Avii.htmlGlobal Wetlands (UNEP-WCMC, 1993); https://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=105a402642e146eaa665315279a322d1Moreno-Mateos, D. et al. Structural and functional loss in restored wetland ecosystems. PLoS Biol. 10, e1001247 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ramsar COP12 DOC.8 Report of the Secretary General to COP12 on the Implementation of the Convention (Ramsar Convention Secretariat, 2015).Page, S. E. et al. Peatlands and global change: response and resilience. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 41, 35–57 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Swindles, G. T. et al. Widespread drying of European peatlands in recent centuries. Nat. Geosci. 12, 922–928 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar  More

Panigada, S., Lauriano, G., Burt, L., Pierantonio, N. & Donovan, G. Monitoring winter and summer abundance of cetaceans in the Pelagos Sanctuary (northwestern Mediterranean Sea) through aerial surveys. PLoS One 6, e22878 (2011).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Moura, A. E., Sillero, N. & Rodrigues, A. Common dolphin (Delphinus delphis) habitat preferences using data from two platforms of opportunity. Acta Oecol. 38, 24–32 (2012).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Rendell, L. et al. Abundance and movements of sperm whales in the western Mediterranean basin. Aquat. Conserv. Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 24, 31–40 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Schipper, J. et al. The status of the world’s land and marine mammals: Diversity. Threat Knowl. 322, 225–230 (2008).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Luksenburg, J. A. & Parsons, E. C. M. Attitudes towards marine mammal conservation issues before the introduction of whale-watching: A case study in Aruba (southern Caribbean). Aquat. Conserv. Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 24, 135–146 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Erbe, C. et al. Managing the effects of noise from ship traffic, seismic surveying and construction on marine mammals in Antarctica. Front. Mar. Sci. 6, 25 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wurtz, M. & Simard, F. Following the food chain- an ecosystem approach to pelagic protected areas in the Mediterranean by means of cetacean presence. Rapp. Comm. Int. Mer Médit 38, 634 (2007).
Google Scholar 
Bǎnaru, D. et al. Trophic structure in the Gulf of Lions marine ecosystem (north-western Mediterranean Sea) and fishing impacts. J. Mar. Syst. 111–112, 45–68 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Moore, S. E. Marine mammals as ecosystem sentinels. J. Mammal. 89, 534–540 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hooker, S. K. & Gerber, L. R. Marine reserves as a tool for ecosystem-based management: The potential importance of Megafauna. Bioscience 54, 27–39 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
Burek, K. A., Gulland, F. M. D. & O’Hara, T. M. Effects of climate change on Arctic marine mammal health. Ecol. Appl. 18, S126–S134 (2008).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Laran, S. et al. Seasonal distribution and abundance of cetaceans within French waters—Part I: The North-Western Mediterranean, including the Pelagos sanctuary. Deep. Res. Part II Top. Stud. Oceanogr. 141, 20–30 (2017).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Arranz, P. et al. Diving behavior and fine-scale kinematics of free-ranging Risso’s dolphins foraging in shallow and deep-water habitats. Front. Ecol. Evol. 7, 1–15 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Praca, E. & Gannier, A. Ecological niche of three teuthophageous odontocetes in the northwestern Mediterranean Sea. Ocean Sci. Discuss. 4, 785–815 (2008).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Tepsich, P., Rosso, M., Halpin, P. N. & Moulins, A. Habitat preferences of two deep-diving cetacean species in the northern Ligurian Sea. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 508, 247–260 (2014).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Gannier, A., Drouot, V. & Goold, J. C. Distribution and relative abundance of sperm whales in the Mediterranean Sea. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 243, 281–293 (2002).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Gannier, A. & Praca, E. SST fronts and the summer sperm whale distribution in the north-west Mediterranean Sea. J. Mar. Biol. Assoc. UK 87, 187–193 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
Azzellino, A. et al. Predictive habitat models for managing marine areas: Spatial and temporal distribution of marine mammals within the Pelagos Sanctuary (Northwestern Mediterranean sea). Ocean Coast. Manage. 67, 63–74 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
de Stephanis, R., Giménez, J., Carpinelli, E., Gutierrez-Exposito, C. & Cañadas, A. As main meal for sperm whales: Plastics debris. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 69, 206–214 (2013).PubMed 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Notarbartolo-Di-Sciara, G. Sperm whales, Physeter macrocephalus, in the Mediterranean Sea: A summary of status, threats, and conservation recommendations. Aquat. Conserv. Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 24, 4–10 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Laran, S. & Drouot-dulau, V. Seasonal variation of striped dolphins , fin- and sperm whales ’ abundance in the Ligurian Sea (Mediterranean Sea). 345–352 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1017/S0025315407054719.Notarbartolo-Di-Sciara, G., Agardy, T., Hyrenbach, D., Scovazzi, T. & Van Klaveren, P. The Pelagos Sanctuary for Mediterranean marine mammals. Aquat. Conserv. Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 18, 367–391 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Azzellino, A., Gaspari, S., Airoldi, S. & Nani, B. Habitat use and preferences of cetaceans along the continental slope and the adjacent pelagic waters in the western Ligurian Sea. Deep Sea Res. Part I Oceanogr. Res. Pap. 55, 296–323 (2008).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Cañadas, A., Sagarminaga, R., De Stephanis, R., Urquiola, E. & Hammond, P. S. Habitat preference modelling as a conservation tool: Proposals for marine protected areas for cetaceans in southern Spanish waters. Aquat. Conserv. Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 15, 495–521 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
Cañadas, A. & Vázquez, J. A. Conserving Cuvier’s beaked whales in the Alboran Sea (SW Mediterranean): Identification of high density areas to be avoided by intense man-made sound. Biol. Conserv. 178, 155–162 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lewis, T. et al. Sperm whale abundance estimates from acoustic surveys of the Ionian Sea and Straits of Sicily in 2003. J. Mar. Biol. Assoc. UK 87, 353 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
Caruso, F. et al. Size distribution of sperm whales acoustically identified during long term deep-sea monitoring in the Ionian Sea. PLoS One 10, e0144503 (2015).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Frantzis, A., Leaper, R., Alexiadou, P., Prospathopoulos, A. & Lekkas, D. Shipping routes through core habitat of endangered sperm whales along the Hellenic Trench, Greece: Can we reduce collision risks?. PLoS One 14, 1–21 (2019).
Google Scholar 
Pirotta, E., Matthiopoulos, J., Mackenzie, M., Scott-hayward, L. & Rendell, L. Modelling sperm whale habitat preference: A novel approach combining transect and follow data. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 436, 257–272 (2011).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Mussi, B., Miragliuolo, A., Zucchini, A. & Pace, D. S. Occurrence and spatio-temporal distribution of sperm whale (Physeter macrocephalus) in the submarine canyon of Cuma (Tyrrhenian Sea, Italy). Aquat. Conserv. Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 24, 59–70 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Arcangeli, A., Campana, I. & Bologna, M. A. Influence of seasonality on cetacean diversity, abundance, distribution and habitat use in the western Mediterranean Sea: Implications for conservation. Aquat. Conserv. Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 27, 995–1010 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Carlucci, R. et al. Residency patterns and site fidelity of Grampus griseus (Cuvier, 1812) in the Gulf of Taranto (Northern Ionian Sea, Central-Eastern Mediterranean Sea). Mammal Res. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13364-020-00485-z (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Cañadas, A. et al. The challenge of habitat modelling for threatened low density species using heterogeneous data: The case of Cuvier’s beaked whales in the Mediterranean. Ecol. Indic. 85, 128–136 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Aïssi, M., Ouammi, A., Fiori, C. & Alessi, J. Modelling predicted sperm whale habitat in the central Mediterranean Sea: Requirement for protection beyond the Pelagos Sanctuary boundaries. Aquat. Conserv. Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 24, 50–58 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Taylor, B. L. et al. Physeter macrocephalus, sperm whale (Amended version). IUCN Red List Threat. Species 8235, 1–17 (2019).
Google Scholar 
Notarbartolo Di Sciara, G., Frantzis, A., Bearzi, G. & Reeves, R. R. Physeter macrocephalus (Mediterranean subpopulation). IUCN Red List Threat. Species 2012 8235, e.T16370739A16370477 (2012).Notarbartolo di Sciara, G. & Birkun, A. J. Conserving whales, dolophins and porpoises in the Mediterranean and Black Seas. (2010).Kiszka, J. & Braulik, G. Grampus griseus. IUCN Red List Threat. Species 2018 8235, e.T9461A50356660 (2018).Gaspari, S. & Natoli, A. Grampus griseus (Mediterranean subpopulation). IUCN Red List Threat. Species 2012 e.T16378423A16378453 8235, 10 (2012).Baird, R. W., Brownell, R. L. Jr. & Taylor, B. L. Ziphius cavirostris. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Popul. (English Ed.) 8235, 1–3 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Canadas, A. Ziphius cavirostris (Mediterranean subpopulation). IUCN Red List Threat. Species Version 20 (2012).Drouot, V. et al. A note on genetic isolation of Mediterranean sperm whales (Physeter macrocephalus) suggested by mitochondrial DNA. J. Cetacean Res. Manage. 6, 29–32 (2004).
Google Scholar 
Engelhaupt, D. et al. Female philopatry in coastal basins and male dispersion across the North Atlantic in a highly mobile marine species, the sperm whale (Physeter macrocephalus). Mol. Ecol https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-294X.2009.04355.x (2009).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Lewis, T. et al. Abundance estimates for sperm whales in the Mediterranean Sea from acoustic line-transect surveys. J. Cetacean Res. Manage. 18, 103–117 (2018).
Google Scholar 
Rendell, L. & Frantzis, A. Mediterranean Sperm Whales, Physeter macrocephalus: The Precarious State of a Lost Tribe. In Advances in Marine Biology, Vol 75 (ed. Sad, D.) (Elsevier, 2016).
Google Scholar 
Alessi, J., Aïssi, M. & Fiori, C. Photo-identification of sperm whales in the north-western Mediterranean Sea: An assessment of natural markings. Aquat. Conserv. Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 24, 11–22 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Blanco, C., Raduán, M. Á. & Raga, J. A. Diet of Risso’s dolphin (Grampus griseus) in the western Mediterranean Sea. Sci. Mar. 70, 407–411 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
Jefferson, T. A. et al. Global distribution of Risso’s dolphin Grampus griseus: A review and critical evaluation. Mamm. Rev. 44, 56–68 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gaspari, S. & Natoli, A. Grampus griseus, Risso’s dolphin. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. https://www.iucnredlist.org/es/species/9461/3151471 (2012).Macias Lopez, D., Garcia Barcelona, S., Baez, J. C., De La Serna, J. M. & Ortizde Urbina, J. M. Marine mammal bycatch in Spanish Mediterranean large pelagic longline fisheries, with a focus on Risso’s dolphin (Grampus griseus). Aquat. Liv. Resour. 331, 321–331 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Zucca, P. et al. Causes of stranding in four Risso’s dolphins (Grampus griseus) found beached along the North Adriatic Sea coast. Vet. Res. Commun. 29, 261–264 (2005).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Alexiadou, P., Foskolos, I. & Frantzis, A. Ingestion of macroplastics by odontocetes of the Greek Seas, Eastern Mediterranean: Often deadly!. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 146, 67–75 (2019).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Jepson, P. D. et al. Gas-bubble lesions in stranded cetaceans. Nature 425, 575–576 (2003).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Mannocci, L. et al. Assessing cetacean surveys throughout the Mediterranean Sea: A gap analysis in environmental space. Sci. Rep. 8, 3126 (2018).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Báez, J., Estrada, A., Torreblanca, D. & Real, R. Predicting the distribution of cryptic species: The case of the spur-thighed tortoise in Andalusia (southern Iberian Peninsula). Biodivers. Conserv. 20, 65–78. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-011-0164-3 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Torreblanca, E. et al. Using opportunistic sightings to infer differential spatio-temporal use of western mediterranean waters by the fin whale. PeerJ 2019, 1–20 (2019).
Google Scholar 
Russo, D., Sgammato, R. & Bosso, L. First sighting of the humpback whale Megaptera novaeangliae in the Tyrrhenian Sea and a mini-review of Mediterranean records. Hystrix Ital. J. Mammal. 27, 219–221 (2016).
Google Scholar 
Esteban, R. et al. Identifying key habitat and seasonal patterns of a critically endangered population of killer whales. J. Mar. Biol. Assoc. UK 94, 1317–1325 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Folkens, P. & Reeves, R. Guide to Marine Mammals of the World (Knopf, 2005).
Google Scholar 
Real, R., Barbosa, A. M. & Vargas, J. M. Obtaining environmental favourability functions from logistic regression. Environ. Ecol. Stat. 13, 237–245 (2006).MathSciNet 
Article 

Google Scholar 
MacNally, R. Regression and model-building in conservation biology, biogeography and ecology: The distinction between—and reconciliation of—‘predictive’ and ‘explanatory’ models. Biodivers. Conserv. 20, 655–671. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.66.085018 (2000).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Real, R., Márcia Barbosa, A. & Bull, J. W. Species distributions, quantum theory, and the enhancement of biodiversity measures. Syst. Biol. 66, 453–462 (2017).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Praca, E., Gannier, A., Das, K. & Laran, S. Modelling the habitat suitability of cetaceans: Example of the sperm whale in the northwestern Mediterranean Sea. Deep Sea Res. Part I Oceanogr. Res. Pap. 56, 648–657 (2009).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Boisseau, O. et al. Encounter rates of cetaceans in the Mediterranean Sea and contiguous Atlantic area. J. Mar. Biol. Assoc. UK 90, 1589–1599 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hamazaki, T. Spatiotemporal prediction models of cetacean habitats in the mid-western North Atlantic Ocean (from Cape Hatteras, North Carolina, USA to Nova Scotia, Canada). Mar. Mammal Sci. 18, 920–939 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
Cañadas, A., Sagarminaga, R. & Garcıa-Tiscar, S. Cetacean distribution related with depth and slope in the Mediterranean waters off southern Spain. Deep Sea Res. Part I 49, 2053–2073 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
Fiori, C., Giancardo, L., Aïssi, M., Alessi, J. & Vassallo, P. Geostatistical modelling of spatial distribution of sperm whales in the Pelagos Sanctuary based on sparse count data and heterogeneous observations. Aquat. Conserv. Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 24, 41–49 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pikesley, S. K. Cetacean sightings and strandings: Evidence for spatial and temporal trends?. J. Mar. Biol. Assoc. UK 92, 1809–1820 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
O’Reilly, J. E. et al. Ocean color chlorophyll algorithms for SeaWiFS. J. Geophys. Res. Ocean. 103, 24937–24953 (1998).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Carton, J. A., Chepurin, G. A. & Chen, L. SODA3: A new ocean climate reanalysis. J. Clim. 31, 6967–6983 (2018).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Romero, J. & Real, R. Macroenvironmental factors as ultimate determinants of distribution of common toad and natterjack toad in the south of Spain. Ecography (Cop.) 20, 305–312 (1996).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hosmer, D. W. & Lemeshow, S. Applied Logistic Regression 2nd edn. (Wiley, 2000).MATH 
Book 

Google Scholar 
Legendre, P. & Legendre, L. Numerical Ecology (Elsevier BV, New York, 1998).MATH 

Google Scholar 
Peng, C.-Y.J., Lee, K. L. & Ingersoll, G. M. An introduction to logistic regression analysis and reporting. J. Educ. Res. 96, 3–14 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
Acevedo, P., Ward, A. I., Real, R. & Smith, G. C. Assessing biogeographical relationships of ecologically related species using favourability functions: A case study on British deer. Divers. Distrib. 16, 515–528 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Zhang, Y., Tang, J., Ren, G., Zhao, K. & Wang, X. Global potential distribution prediction of Xanthium italicum based on Maxent model. Sci. Rep. 11, 1–10 (2021).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Ancillotto, L. et al. An African bat in Europe, Plecotus gaisleri: Biogeographic and ecological insights from molecular taxonomy and Species Distribution Models. Ecol. Evol. 10, 5785–5800 (2020).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Akaike. Information theory and an extension of the maximum likelihood principle. 199–213 (1929). More

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.This is a summary of: Liebert, J. et al. Farm size affects the use of agroecological practices on organic farms in the United States. Nat. Plants https://doi.org/10.1038/s41477-022-01191-1 (2022). More

Xia, J. et al. Terrestrial carbon cycle affected by non-uniform climate warming. Nat. Geosci. 7, 173–180 (2014).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Tang, R. et al. Increasing terrestrial ecosystem carbon release in response to autumn cooling and warming. Nat. Clim. Change 12, 380–385 (2022).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Hugelius, G. et al. Large stocks of peatland carbon and nitrogen are vulnerable to permafrost thaw. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117, 20438–20446 (2020).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Gallego-Sala, A. V. et al. Latitudinal limits to the predicted increase of the peatland carbon sink with warming. Nat. Clim. Change 8, 907–913 (2018).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Treat, C. C. et al. Widespread global peatland establishment and persistence over the last 130,000 y. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 4822–4827 (2019).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Frolking, S., Roulet, N. & Fuglestvedt, J. How northern peatlands influence the Earth’s radiative budget: sustained methane emission versus sustained carbon sequestration. J. Geophys. Res. Biogeosci. 111, G01008 (2006).
Google Scholar 
Loisel, J. et al. Expert assessment of future vulnerability of the global peatland carbon sink. Nat. Clim. Change 11, 70–77 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Helbig, M. et al. Direct and indirect climate change effects on carbon dioxide fluxes in a thawing boreal forest–wetland landscape. Glob. Change Biol. 23, 3231–3248 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Koebsch, F. et al. Refining the role of phenology in regulating gross ecosystem productivity across European peatlands. Glob. Change Biol. 26, 876–887 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Huang, Y. et al. Tradeoff of CO2 and CH4 emissions from global peatlands under water-table drawdown. Nat. Clim. Change 11, 618–622 (2021).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Evans, C. D. et al. Overriding water table control on managed peatland greenhouse gas emissions. Nature 593, 548–552 (2021).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Helfter, C. et al. Drivers of long-term variability in CO2 net ecosystem exchange in a temperate peatland. Biogeosciences 12, 1799–1811 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
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).Article 

Google Scholar 
Mäkiranta, P. et al. Responses of phenology and biomass production of boreal fens to climate warming under different water-table level regimes. Glob. Change Biol. 24, 944–956 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Li, Q. et al. Abiotic and biotic drivers of microbial respiration in peat and its sensitivity to temperature change. Soil Biol. Biochem. 153, 108077 (2021).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Moore, T. R. et al. Spring photosynthesis in a cool temperate bog. Glob. Change Biol. 12, 2323–2335 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
Korrensalo, A. et al. Species-specific temporal variation in photosynthesis as a moderator of peatland carbon sequestration. Biogeosciences 14, 257–269 (2017).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Weltzin, J. F. et al. Response of bog and fen plant communities to warming and water-table manipulations. Ecology 81, 3464–3478 (2000).Article 

Google Scholar 
Dimitrov, D. D., Grant, R. F., Lafleur, P. M. & Humphreys, E. R. Modeling the effects of hydrology on gross primary productivity and net ecosystem productivity at Mer Bleue bog. J. Geophys. Res. Biogeosci. 116, G04010 (2011).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
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).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Moore, T. R. & Knowles, R. The influence of water table levels on methane and carbon dioxide emissions from peatland soils. Can. J. Soil Sci. 69, 33–38 (1989).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Nichols, D. S. Temperature of upland and peatland soils in a north central Minnesota forest. Can. J. Soil Sci. 78, 493–509 (1998).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bellisario, L. M., Moore, T. R. & Bubier, J. L. Net ecosystem CO2 exchange in a boreal peatland, northern Manitoba. Écoscience 5, 534–541 (1998).Article 

Google Scholar 
Yu, Z. et al. Peatlands and their role in the global carbon cycle. Eos 92, 97–98 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hanson, P. J. et al. Rapid net carbon loss from a whole-ecosystem warmed peatland. AGU Adv. 1, e2020AV000163 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Vincent, L. A. et al. Observed trends in Canada’s climate and influence of low-frequency variability modes. J. Clim. 28, 4545–4560 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Templer, P. H. et al. Climate Change Across Seasons Experiment (CCASE): a new method for simulating future climate in seasonally snow-covered ecosystems. PLoS ONE 12, e0171928 (2017).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
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).Article 

Google Scholar 
Helbig, M., Humphreys, E. R. & Todd, A. Contrasting temperature sensitivity of CO2 exchange in peatlands of the Hudson Bay Lowlands, Canada. J. Geophys. Res. Biogeosci. 124, 2126–2143 (2019).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Griffis, T. J., Rouse, W. R. & Waddington, J. M. Interannual variability of net ecosystem CO2 exchange at a subarctic fen. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 14, 1109–1121 (2000).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Bubier, J. L., Crill, P. M., Moore, T. R., Savage, K. & Varner, R. K. Seasonal patterns and controls on net ecosystem CO2 exchange in a boreal peatland complex. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 12, 703–714 (1998).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Park, S.-B. et al. Temperature control of spring CO2 fluxes at a coniferous forest and a peat bog in Central Siberia. Atmosphere 12, 984 (2021).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Adkinson, A. C., Syed, K. H. & Flanagan, L. B. Contrasting responses of growing season ecosystem CO2 exchange to variation in temperature and water table depth in two peatlands in northern Alberta, Canada. J. Geophys. Res. Biogeosci. 116, G01004 (2011).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Heiskanen, L. et al. Carbon dioxide and methane exchange of a patterned subarctic fen during two contrasting growing seasons. Biogeosciences 18, 873–896 (2021).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Lafleur, P. M., Roulet, N. T., Bubier, J. L., Frolking, S. & Moore, T. R. Interannual variability in the peatland-atmosphere carbon dioxide exchange at an ombrotrophic bog. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 17, 1036 (2003).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Joiner, D. W., Lafleur, P. M., McCaughey, J. H. & Bartlett, P. A. Interannual variability in carbon dioxide exchanges at a boreal wetland in the BOREAS northern study area. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 104, 27663–27672 (1999).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
McVeigh, P., Sottocornola, M., Foley, N., Leahy, P. & Kiely, G. Meteorological and functional response partitioning to explain interannual variability of CO2 exchange at an Irish Atlantic blanket bog. Agric. For. Meteorol. 194, 8–19 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Helbig, M. et al. Increasing contribution of peatlands to boreal evapotranspiration in a warming climate. Nat. Clim. Change 10, 555–560 (2020).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Bourgault, M.-A., Larocque, M. & Garneau, M. How do hydrogeological setting and meteorological conditions influence water table depth and fluctuations in ombrotrophic peatlands? J. Hydrol. X 4, 100032 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Yurova, A., Wolf, A., Sagerfors, J. & Nilsson, M. Variations in net ecosystem exchange of carbon dioxide in a boreal mire: modeling mechanisms linked to water table position. J. Geophys. Res. Biogeosci. 112, G02025 (2007).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Laine, A. M. et al. Warming impacts on boreal fen CO2 exchange under wet and dry conditions. Glob. Change Biol. 25, 1995–2008 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Chivers, M. R., Turetsky, M. R., Waddington, J. M., Harden, J. W. & McGuire, A. D. Effects of experimental water table and temperature manipulations on ecosystem CO2 fluxes in an Alaskan rich fen. Ecosystems 12, 1329–1342 (2009).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Juszczak, R. et al. Ecosystem respiration in a heterogeneous temperate peatland and its sensitivity to peat temperature and water table depth. Plant Soil 366, 505–520 (2013).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Hao, D. et al. Estimating hourly land surface downward shortwave and photosynthetically active radiation from DSCOVR/EPIC observations. Remote Sens. Environ. 232, 111320 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
O’Donnell, J. A., Romanovsky, V. E., Harden, J. W. & McGuire, A. D. The effect of moisture content on the thermal conductivity of moss and organic soil horizons from black spruce ecosystems in interior Alaska. Soil Sci. 174, 646–651 (2009).Article 
CAS 

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

Google Scholar 
Zhang, Y., Commane, R., Zhou, S., Williams, A. P. & Gentine, P. Light limitation regulates the response of autumn terrestrial carbon uptake to warming. Nat. Clim. Change 10, 739–743 (2020).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Samson, M. et al. The impact of experimental temperature and water level manipulation on carbon dioxide release in a poor fen in northern Poland. Wetlands 38, 551–563 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Drever, C. R. et al. Natural climate solutions for Canada. Sci. Adv. 7, eabd6034 (2021).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Hemes, K. S., Runkle, B. R. K., Novick, K. A., Baldocchi, D. D. & Field, C. B. An ecosystem-scale flux measurement strategy to assess natural climate solutions. Environ. Sci. Technol. 55, 3494–3504 (2021).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Walker, T. W. N. et al. A systemic overreaction to years versus decades of warming in a subarctic grassland ecosystem. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 4, 101–108 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Xu, B. et al. Seasonal variability of forest sensitivity to heat and drought stresses: a synthesis based on carbon fluxes from North American forest ecosystems. Glob. Change Biol. 26, 901–918 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Piao, S. et al. Net carbon dioxide losses of northern ecosystems in response to autumn warming. Nature 451, 49–52 (2008).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Joyce, P. et al. How robust Is the apparent break-down of northern high-latitude temperature control on spring carbon uptake? Geophys. Res. Lett. 48, e2020GL091601 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Grant, R. F. et al. Changes in net ecosystem productivity of boreal black spruce stands in response to changes in temperature at diurnal and seasonal time scales. Tree Physiol. 29, 1–17 (2009).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Kwon, M. J. et al. Siberian 2020 heatwave increased spring CO2 uptake but not annual CO2 uptake. Environ. Res. Lett. 16, 124030 (2021).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Yu, Z., Griffis, T. J. & Baker, J. M. Warming temperatures lead to reduced summer carbon sequestration in the U.S. Corn Belt. Commun. Earth Environ. 2, 53 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wang, S. et al. Warmer spring alleviated the impacts of 2018 European summer heatwave and drought on vegetation photosynthesis. Agric. For. Meteorol. 295, 108195 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wang, T. et al. Emerging negative impact of warming on summer carbon uptake in northern ecosystems. Nat. Commun. 9, 5391 (2018).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Lin, X. et al. Siberian and temperate ecosystems shape Northern Hemisphere atmospheric CO2 seasonal amplification. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117, 21079–21087 (2020).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Helbig, M. et al. Warming response of peatland CO2 sink is sensitive to seasonality in warming trends. Zenodo https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6685222 (2022).Didan, K. MOD13Q1 MODIS/Terra Vegetation Indices 16-Day L3 Global 250 m SIN Grid V006 [Data set]. NASA EOSDIS Land Processes DAAC (2015); https://doi.org/10.5067/MODIS/MOD13Q1.006Harris, I., Osborn, T. J., Jones, P. & Lister, D. Version 4 of the CRU TS monthly high-resolution gridded multivariate climate dataset. Sci. Data 7, 109 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lees, K. J. et al. Using spectral indices to estimate water content and GPP in Sphagnum moss and other peatland vegetation. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. 58, 4547–4557 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bennett, A. C., McDowell, N. G., Allen, C. D. & Anderson-Teixeira, K. J. Larger trees suffer most during drought in forests worldwide. Nat. Plants 1, 15139 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Page, S. E. & Baird, A. J. Peatlands and global change: response and resilience. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 41, 35–57 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Juottonen, H. et al. Integrating decomposers, methane-cycling microbes and ecosystem carbon fluxes along a peatland successional gradient in a land uplift region. Ecosystems https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-021-00713-w (2021). More

Database representativeness of global monoculture plantationsOur database includes 4756 measurements of carbon in aboveground live tree biomass in monoculture plantations, collected from 829 distinct sites across the globe (Fig. 1). These sites were primarily in Asia (59%), Europe (16%), North America (15%), and South America (4%), with the remainder located in Oceania and Africa (~5%). The dataset included 240 species from 96 distinct genera of tree; however, 33 genera were poorly represented (n  More

Vázquez, D. P., Gianoli, E., Morris, W. F. & Bozinovic, F. Ecological and evolutionary impacts of changing climatic variability. Biol. Rev. 92, 22–42. https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12216 (2017).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Marshall, K. E. & Sinclair, B. J. The impacts of repeated cold exposure on insects. J. Exp. Biol. 215, 1607–1613. https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.059956 (2012).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Bale, J. & Hayward, S. Insect overwintering in a changing climate. J. Exp. Biol. 213, 980–994 (2010).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Kingsolver, J. G. Feeding, growth, and the thermal environment of cabbage white caterpillars, Pieris rapae L. Physiol. Biochem. Zool. 73, 621–628 (2000).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Stange, E. E. & Ayres, M. P. Climate change impacts: Insects (JohnWiley & Sons, 2010).
Google Scholar 
Chapman, A. D. Numbers of Living Species in Australia and the World: Report for the Department of the Environment and Heritage Canberra, Australia (Department of the Environment and Heritage, 2006).
Google Scholar 
Colinet, H., Sinclair, B. J., Vernon, P. & Renault, D. Insects in fluctuating thermal environments. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 60, 123–140. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-ento-010814-021017 (2015).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Hickling, R., Roy, D. B., Hill, J. K. & Thomas, C. D. A northward shift of range margins in British Odonata. Glob. Change Biol. 11, 502–506. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2005.00904.x (2005).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Rumpf, S. B., Hülber, K., Zimmermann, N. E. & Dullinger, S. Elevational rear edges shifted at least as much as leading edges over the last century. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 28, 533–543. https://doi.org/10.1111/geb.12865 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Halsch, C. A. et al. Insects and recent climate change. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 118, e2002543117. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2002543117 (2021).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
McCain, C. M. & Garfinkel, C. F. Climate change and elevational range shifts in insects. Curr. Opin. Insect Sci. 47, 111–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cois.2021.06.003 (2021).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Angilletta, M. J. Jr. & Angilletta, M. J. Thermal Adaptation: A Theoretical and Empirical Synthesis (Oxford University Press, 2009).Book 

Google Scholar 
Angilletta, M. J. & Dunham, A. E. The temperature-size rule in ectotherms: Simple evolutionary explanations may not be general. Am. Nat. 162, 332–342. https://doi.org/10.1086/377187 (2003).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Jensen, J. L. W. V. Sur les fonctions convexes et les inégalités entre les valeurs moyennes. Acta Math. 30, 175–193 (1906).MathSciNet 
MATH 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Ruel, J. J. & Ayres, M. P. Jensen’s inequality predicts effects of environmental variation. Trends Ecol. Evol. 14, 361–366 (1999).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Kingsolver, J. G. & Woods, H. A. Thermal sensitivity of growth and feeding in Manduca sexta Caterpillars. Physiol. Zool. 70, 631–638. https://doi.org/10.1086/515872 (1997).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Gillooly, J. F., Brown, J. H., West, G. B., Savage, V. M. & Charnov, E. L. Effects of size and temperature on metabolic rate. Science 293, 2248–2251 (2001).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Bale, J. S. et al. Herbivory in global climate change research: Direct effects of rising temperature on insect herbivores. Glob. Change Biol. 8, 1–16 (2002).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Robinet, C. & Roques, A. Direct impacts of recent climate warming on insect populations. Integr. Zool. 5, 132–142 (2010).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
García-Robledo, C., Kuprewicz, E. K., Staines, C. L., Erwin, T. L. & Kress, W. J. Limited tolerance by insects to high temperatures across tropical elevational gradients and the implications of global warming for extinction. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 113, 680–685. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1507681113 (2016).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Vasseur, D. A. et al. Increased temperature variation poses a greater risk to species than climate warming. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 281, 20132612 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Sandehson, D. E. The relation of temperature to the growth of insects. J. Econ. Entomol. 3, 113–140 (1910).Article 

Google Scholar 
Cook, W. C. Some Effects of Alternating Temperatures on the Growth and Metabolism of Cutworm Larvae (Oxford University Press, 1927).
Google Scholar 
Kingsolver, J. G., Ragland, G. J. & Diamond, S. E. Evolution in a constant environment: Thermal fluctuations and thermal sensitivity of laboratory and field populations of Manduca sexta. Evolution 63, 537–541. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1558-5646.2008.00568.x (2009).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Eldridge, W. H., Sweeney, B. W. & Law, J. M. Fish growth, physiological stress, and tissue condition in response to rate of temperature change during cool or warm diel thermal cycles. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 72, 1527–1537 (2015).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Bernhardt, J. R., Sunday, J. M., Thompson, P. L. & O’Connor, M. I. Nonlinear averaging of thermal experience predicts population growth rates in a thermally variable environment. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 285, 20181076. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2018.1076 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Morissette, J., Swart, S., Maccormack, T. J., Currie, S. & Morash, A. J. Thermal variation near the thermal optimum does not affect the growth, metabolism or swimming performance in wild Atlantic salmon Salmo salar. J. Fish Biol. 98, 1585–1589. https://doi.org/10.1111/jfb.14348 (2021).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Bozinovic, F. et al. The mean and variance of environmental temperature interact to determine physiological tolerance and fitness. Physiol. Biochem. Zool. 84, 543–552 (2011).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Boggs, C. L. The fingerprints of global climate change on insect populations. Curr. Opin. Insect Sci. 17, 69–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cois.2016.07.004 (2016).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Lemoine, N. P., Drews, W. A., Burkepile, D. E. & Parker, J. D. Increased temperature alters feeding behavior of a generalist herbivore. Oikos 122, 1669–1678. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0706.2013.00457.x (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Vangansbeke, D. et al. Prey consumption by phytoseiid spider mite predators as affected by diurnal temperature variations. Biocontrol 60, 595–603 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Davies, C., Coetzee, M. & Lyons, C. L. Effect of stable and fluctuating temperatures on the life history traits of Anopheles arabiensis and An. quadriannulatus under conditions of inter-and intra-specific competition. Parasit. Vectors 9, 1–9 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Delava, E., Fleury, F. & Gibert, P. Effects of daily fluctuating temperatures on the Drosophila-Leptopilina boulardi parasitoid association. J. Therm. Biol. 60, 95–102 (2016).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Amarasekare, P. & Coutinho, R. M. Effects of temperature on intraspecific competition in ectotherms. Am. Nat. 184, E50–E65. https://doi.org/10.1086/677386 (2014).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Jiang, L. & Morin, P. J. Temperature-dependent interactions explain unexpected responses to environmental warming in communities of competitors. J. Anim. Ecol. 73, 569–576 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
Novich, R. A., Erickson, E. K., Kalinoski, R. M. & DeLong, J. P. The temperature independence of interaction strength in a sit-and-wait predator. Ecosphere 5, 1–9 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Fox, L. R. Cannibalism in natural populations. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 6, 87–106 (1975).Article 

Google Scholar 
Polis, G. A. The evolution and dynamics of intraspecific predation. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 12, 225–251 (1981).Article 

Google Scholar 
Nishimura, K. & Isoda, Y. Evolution of cannibalism: Referring to costs of cannibalism. J. Theor. Biol. 226, 293–302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtbi.2003.09.007 (2004).ADS 
MathSciNet 
Article 
PubMed 
MATH 

Google Scholar 
Crumrine, P. W. Body size, temperature, and seasonal differences in size structure influence the occurrence of cannibalism in larvae of the migratory dragonfly, Anax junius. Aquat. Ecol. 44, 761–770 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Reglero, P., Urtizberea, A., Torres, A. P., Alemany, F. & Fiksen, Ø. Cannibalism among size classes of larvae may be a substantial mortality component in tuna. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 433, 205–219 (2011).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Nilsson-Örtman, V., Stoks, R. & Johansson, F. Competitive interactions modify the temperature dependence of damselfly growth rates. Ecology 95, 1394–1406. https://doi.org/10.1890/13-0875.1 (2014).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Pritchard, G. & Leggott, M. Temperature, incubation rates and the origins of dragonflies. Adv. Odonatol. 3, 121–126 (1987).
Google Scholar 
Hassall, C. & Thompson, D. J. The effects of environmental warming on Odonata: A review. Int. J. Odonatol. 11, 131–153 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Johansson, F. & Crowley, P. H. Larval cannibalism and population dynamics of dragonflies. In Aquatic Insects: Challenges to Populations 36–54 (CABI, 2008).Rudolf, V. H. W. & Rasmussen, N. L. Ontogenetic functional diversity: Size structure of a keystone predator drives functioning of a complex ecosystem. Ecology 94, 1046–1056 (2013).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Hyeun-Ji, L. & Johansson, F. Compensating for a bad start: Compensatory growth across life stages in an organism with a complex life cycle. Can. J. Zool. 94, 41–47 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Sokolovska, N., Rowe, L. & Johansson, F. Fitness and body size in mature odonates. Ecol. Entomol. 25, 239–248. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2311.2000.00251.x (2000).Article 

Google Scholar 
Karl, T. R. Modern global climate change. Science 302, 1719–1723. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1090228 (2003).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Meehl, G. A. et al. Climate Change 2007: the physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Cambridge University Press, 2007).
Google Scholar 
Meehl, G. A. More intense, more frequent, and longer lasting heat waves in the 21st century. Science 305, 994–997. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1098704 (2004).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Khelifa, R. Spatiotemporal Pattern of Phenology Across Geographic Gradients in Insects, in Chapter 1 (Geographic Gradients in Climate Change Response Explained by Non-linear Thermal-Performance Curves) (University of Zurich, 2017).
Google Scholar 
Boudot, J. P. & Kalkman, V. Atlas of the European Dragonflies and Damselflies (KNNV Publishing, 2015).
Google Scholar 
Norling, U. Growth, winter preparations and timing of emergence in temperate zone Odonata: Control by a succession of larval response patterns. Int. J. Odonatol. 24, 1–36 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Sniegula, S. & Johansson, F. Photoperiod affects compensating developmental rate across latitudes in the damselfly Lestes sponsa. Ecol. Entomol. 35, 149–157. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2311.2009.01164.x (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Sniegula, S., Golab, M. J. & Johansson, F. Size-mediated priority and temperature effects on intra-cohort competition and cannibalism in a damselfly. J. Anim. Ecol. 88, 637–648. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2656.12947 (2019).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Schneider, C. A., Rasband, W. S. & Eliceiri, K. W. NIH Image to ImageJ: 25 years of image analysis. Nat. Methods 9, 671–675. https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.2089 (2012).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Benke, A. C. A method for comparing individual growth rates of aquatic insects with special reference to the Odonata. Ecology 51, 328–331 (1970).Article 

Google Scholar 
Nilsson-Örtman, V., Stoks, R., De Block, M. & Johansson, F. Generalists and specialists along a latitudinal transect: Patterns of thermal adaptation in six species of damselflies. Ecology 93, 1340–1352. https://doi.org/10.1890/11-1910.1 (2012).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Eklund, A. et al. Sveriges Framtida Klimat: Underlag Till Dricksvattenutredningen (SMHI, 2015).
Google Scholar 
McPeek, M. A. Determination of species composition in the Enallagma damselfly assemblages of permanent lakes. Ecology 71, 83–98. https://doi.org/10.2307/1940249 (1990).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kirillin, G. et al. FLake-global: Online lake model with worldwide coverage. Environ. Model. Softw. 26, 683–684. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2010.12.004 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
SMHI. Advanced Climate Change Scenario Service. https://www.smhi.se.R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2019).Suhling, F., Suhling, I. & Richter, O. Temperature response of growth of larval dragonflies–An overview. Int. J. Odonatol. 18, 15–30 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Padfield, D., O’Sullivan, H. & Pawar, S. rTPC and nls.multstart: A new pipeline to fit thermal performance curves in R. Methods Ecol. Evol. 1, 1. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.13585 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kleiber, M. Body size and metabolism. Hilgardia 6, 315–353 (1932).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Hemmingsen, A. Reports of the Steno Memorial Hospital and Nordisk Insulin Laboratorium. Energy Metab. Relat. Body Size Respir. Surf. Evol. 9, 6–110 (1960).
Google Scholar 
Dell, A. I., Pawar, S. & Savage, V. M. Systematic variation in the temperature dependence of physiological and ecological traits. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 108, 10591–10596 (2011).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Logan, J. D., Wolesensky, W. & Joern, A. Temperature-dependent phenology and predation in arthropod systems. Ecol. Model. 196, 471–482. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2006.02.034 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pink, M. & Abrahams, M. V. Temperature and its impact on predation risk within aquatic ecosystems. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 73, 869–876. https://doi.org/10.1139/cjfas-2015-0302 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
DeAngelis, D., Cox, D. & Coutant, C. Cannibalism and size dispersal in young-of-the-year largemouth bass: Experiment and model. Ecol. Model. 8, 133–148 (1980).Article 

Google Scholar 
Fagan, W. F. & Odell, G. M. Size-dependent cannibalism in praying mantids: Using biomass flux to model size-structured populations. Am. Nat. 147, 230–268 (1996).Article 

Google Scholar 
Dong, Q. & Deangelis, D. L. Consequences of cannibalism and competition for food in a smallmouth bass population: An individual-based modeling study. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 127, 174–191 (1998).Article 

Google Scholar 
Verheyen, J. & Stoks, R. Temperature variation makes an ectotherm more sensitive to global warming unless thermal evolution occurs. J. Anim. Ecol. 88, 624–636. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2656.12946 (2019).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Starr, S. M. & McIntyre, N. E. Effects of water temperature under projected climate change on the development and survival of Enallagma civile (Odonata: Coenagrionidae). Environ. Entomol. 49, 230–237. https://doi.org/10.1093/ee/nvz138 (2020).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Culler, L. E., McPeek, M. A. & Ayres, M. P. Predation risk shapes thermal physiology of a predaceous damselfly. Oecologia 176, 653–660. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-014-3058-8 (2014).ADS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Dokulil, M. T. et al. Increasing maximum lake surface temperature under climate change. Clim. Change https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-021-03085-1 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Merritt, R. W. & Cummins, K. W. An Introduction to the Aquatic Insects of North America 2nd edn. (Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company, 1984).
Google Scholar 
Verdonschot, R. & Peeters, E. T. Preference of larvae of Enallagma cyathigerum (Odonata: Coenagrionidae) for habitats of varying structural complexity. Eur. J. Entomol. 109, 229–234 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
McCarty, J. P., Wolfenbarger, L. L. & Wilson, J. A. eLS 1–13 (Wiley, 2017).Book 

Google Scholar 
Holzmann, K. L. Challenges in a Changing Climate: The Effect of Temperature Variation on Growth and Competition in Damselflies Independent thesis Advanced level (degree of Master (Two Years) thesis, Uppsala University. http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-467582 (2022). More

Data management and workflowsWe adopt best-practice approaches for open and reproducible research planning, execution, reporting, and management throughout the project (see e.g.29,30,31,32). Specifically, we use community-approved standards for experimental design and data collection29, and clean and manage the data using a fully scripted and reproducible data workflow, with data and code deposited at open repositories (Fig. 2).Fig. 2The data collection and management workflow of the FunCaB project. Reproducibility throughout the research process is assured as follows: Experimental design and data collection was based on best-practice community methods and protocols, adapted for the projects’ needs. Measurements were digitalized and the raw data stored in the project Open Science Foundation (OSF) repository before the raw data were cleaned and managed through code-based data curation, with version control secured via GitHub. The clean data are stored at the OSF repository, and a time-stamped version of the code to retrieve and clean data is provided through Zenodo. This data paper describes and documents the data collection and workflow, and describes how to access and use clean data, raw data, and code.Full size imageResearch site selection and basic information, and general study setupSite selectionOur study is conducted across the twelve calcareous grassland experimental sites in the Vestland Climate Grid (VCG), in south-western Norway (Fig. 1a). The VCG sites were chosen to fit within a climate grid reflecting a fully factorial design encompassing the major bioclimatic variation in Norway. Potential sites were identified using a combination of topographic maps, geological maps (NGU) and interpolated maps of summer temperature and annual precipitation using the 1960–1990 climate normal (100 m resolution gridded data, met.no; see33 and references therein). The three temperature levels (alpine, sub-alpine, boreal) and four levels of precipitation in the climate grid (Fig. 1b) were selected to reflect a difference in mean growing season temperature of ca. 2 °C between three temperature levels (alpine = 6.5 °C, sub-alpine = 8.5 °C, boreal = 10.5 °C mean temperature of the four warmest months of the year) and a difference in mean annual precipitation of 700 mm between four precipitation levels (precipitation levels 1 – 4 representing 700 mm, 1400 mm, 2100 mm, and 2800 mm, respectively). Climate data for the site selection was based on 100-m resolution downscaled data using the 1960–1990 climate normal from met.no. The final sites were selected from approximately 200 potential sites visited and surveyed in the summer of 2008, with selection criteria set to ensure that other factors such as grazing regime and history, bedrock, vegetation type and structure, slope and exposure were kept as constant as possible among the selected sites34. Geographical distance between sites is on average 15 km and ranges from 175 km to 650 m.Study system and experimental area selection within sitesAt each site, we selected an experimental area of ca. 75 –200 m2, targeting a homogeneous and representative part of the target grassland vegetation at large at that site. The experimental areas were placed on southerly-facing slopes, avoiding depressions and concave areas in the landscape and other features such as big rocks or formations that may affect light conditions, hydrology and/or snowdrift. The target vegetation type was forb-rich semi-natural upland grassland vegetation34,35, within the plant sociological association Potentillo-Festucetum ovinae tending towards Potentillo-Poligonium vivipara in the alpine sites and Nardo-Agrostion tenuis in some lowland sites36. The most common vascular plants across sites, based on sum of covers, are the graminoids Agrostis capillaris, Festuca rubra, Avenella flexuosa, Anthoxanthum odoratum, and Nardus stricta and the forbs Leucantemum vulgare, Hypericum maculatum, Silene acaulis, Alchemilla alpina, and Lotus corniculatus. Common bryophytes are Pleurotium schreberi, Hylocomium splendens, Polythricum spp, Racomitrium lanuginosum, R. fasciculare, and Dicranum spp. All sites were moderately grazed prior to the study by sheep, cattle, goats, reindeer, deer, moose, and/or horses; and the experimental areas were fenced for the duration of the study to prevent animal and human disturbance of the experimental infrastructure. The fenced area was lightly mowed at the end of each growing season to mimic past grazing pressure and minimize fence effects. For further description of the sites, see34 and for access to and further description of site-level data, see35.Block and experimental plot setupWithin these study areas we established four blocks, with a distance between the blocks ranging from one up to (in rare cases) 50 meters. Blocks were selectively placed in homogenous grassland vegetation, avoiding rocks, depressions, and other features as described above. Each block accommodates eight 25 × 25 cm plots, with at least 25 cm between adjacent plots. If a plot contained more than 10% bare rock, shrubs, or other non-grassland features, they were rejected or moved slightly to avoid these features. The plots were permanently marked with four aluminium 10-cm long pipes in the soil in the outer corners of all the 25 × 25 cm treatment plots, ensuring the pipes to fit the corners of a standardized vegetation analysis frame (aluminium frame demarking a 25 × 25 cm inner area, with poles fixed in the corners that fit into the aluminium tubes used for plot demarcation in the field). The upslope left corner tube was marked with a colour-coded waterproof tape. Note that in 31 out of 48 cases (12 sites × 4 blocks), the blocks were located within larger experimental blocks in the VCG sites, and control plots and various block-level data are then shared with other experiments in these larger blocks. Linking keys are described in the FunCaB data dictionaries below (see Fig. 3 and data records iii-vii below). For some datasets, additional plots within blocks were needed. These are described as needed below.Fig. 3Data structure for the FunCaB functional group removal experiment and associated Vestland Climate Grid (VCG) and FUNDER project data. Within each of the three projects, boxes represent data tables. The FunCaB project data tables include biomass of functional groups removed and forb species-level biomass (datasets i, ii), soil temperature and moisture (datasets iii, iv) plant community composition and the associated taxon table (dataset v), seedling recruitment (dataset vi), ecosystem carbon fluxes (dataset vii) and reflectance (dataset viii). Names of individual data tables are given in the coloured title area, and a selection of the main variables available within tables in the internal lists. For full sets of variables for each FunCaB dataset, see Tables 3–9. The lines linking three of the boxes exemplify links using species as keys across tables, note that all bold variables are shared between several tables and can be used as keys to join them. Keys can also be used to link to/from data from other projects in the VCG (for general VCG project keys, see top right hatched outline box, for keys between the FunCaB and FUNDER projects see the bottom right hatched outline box (both including an example value for each variable on the right). The (other) datasets* boxes refer to extensive datasets on plant community composition, cover, biomass, fitness, and reproduction available from previous projects in the VCG27 and upcoming datasets in the FUNDER project.Full size imageBackground abiotic and biotic data from the Vestland Climate GridThe Vestland Climate Grid field sites were established in 2008, and from a series of research projects within the grid over the years we have collected a broad range of datasets on the climate and environment, soils, land-use and environment, vegetation, and ecosystems, along with basic descriptive data of the 12 sites, as described in34. All these datasets are available from the previous projects through the VCG OSF (Open Science Framework) repository35, and the results are presented in associated papers, see for example34,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45. The overall data structure, and the most relevant datasets from the VCG for the FunCaB project is laid out in Fig. 3, and briefly described below. Code to download and link these data to the FunCaB experimental data and sites are provided in the FunCaB github repository28 (see R/download_VCG_data).A new research project, ‘FUNDER – Direct and indirect climate impacts on the biodiversity and FUNctioning of the UNDERground ecosystem’ funded by the Norwegian Research Council KLIMAFORSK programme (project number 315249, 2021 – 2025) will augment the FunCaB experiment with data on the belowground components of the plant-soil ecosystem, including roots, mesofauna, fungi and microbes. These upcoming data will all link with the FunCaB and VCG project based on the given experimental, site and organismal keys, as indicated in Fig. 3.VCG Basic site-level attributesBasic descriptive data on the 12 sites include latitude, longitude, elevation, geology, land-use, soils, and their position within the climate grid (precipitation and temperature levels). These data are described in34,40, provided in35, and can be downloaded using28 (see R/download_VCG_data). For convenience, the climate grid information is also provided in the biomass dataset (see below).VCG Site-level climate dataTemperature was measured continuously at each of the 12 VCG sites at four heights (2 m and 30 cm above ground, at ground level, and 5 cm below ground), soil moisture was measured continuously with two replicate loggers ca. 5 cm below ground, and precipitation was measured at each site during the snow-free season. For these measurements, we used Delta T GP1 loggers (Delta T devices, Cambridge, UK) equipped with two temperature probes, two SM200 moisture sensors which were later replaced as necessary with SM300 and SM150T loggers, and an ARG 100 tipping bucket (EML LTD, North Shields, UK) from 2009 onwards. UTL-3 version 3.0 temperature loggers (GEOTEST AG, Zollikofen, Switzerland) were used for measuring the 2 m and 30 cm temperatures. Soil moisture was measured as the mean of four measurements taken along each side of the turf, several times during the growing season using a Delta T HH2 version 2.3 Moisture Meter with the same probes as for the GP1 logger (SM200, SM150T). These data are described in34,40, provided in35, and can be downloaded using28 (see folder R/download_VCG_data).VCG Soil chemical and structural dataOver the years, various soil chemical variables have been measured at the block level within each of the 12 VCG sites, including soil pH (2009) and % Loss-On-Ignition (2009, 2013), and available N, as sum of N available as NH4-N and NO3-N (available N per deployment period, 2010 & 2012). Soil pH was measured after adding 50 ml distilled water to 25 g soil and mixing for two hours. Loss-on-ignition (LOI), was measured by weighing dry soil (105 °C for 24, one hour in a desiccator), and burnt soil (six hours at 550 °C, one hour in the desiccator) and calculating LOI as the (burnt soil mass/dry soil mass) × 100. NH4-N and NO3-N were measured using in-situ ion exchange resin bags (IERBs) were used to measure the amount of plant-available nutrients in the soil. These data are partially described in34,40, and the full data are provided in35.VCG Litter decomposition dataDecomposition has been assessed at each of the 12 VCG sites using local plant litter and the Tea Bag Index method (Keuskamp et al., 2013). Local litter (dead leaves detached from live plants) was collected at each site in 2013 or 2014, with the specific timing of the collections at each site tuned to ensure that litter was present, not covered by snow, and not decomposed. In practice, this necessitated litter collection after snowmelt in spring in many sites. The litter was washed, dried, and stored in dark, dry, cool conditions. In 2016, five replicate litter bags containing 1 g of graminoid litter were buried at each site, and collected at four points in time after burial (1, 2, 3 and 12 months). Harvested litter bags were cleaned (soil and roots removed), dried for 48 h at 60 °C and weighed. The Tea Bag Index method46 was used in 2014, 2015 and 2016 to measure decomposition at all sites of the climate grid. At each site, 10 replicates of each tea type were buried pair-wise, 8 cm below ground and with at least 10 cm between the tea bags. For a couple of sites, the number of replicate tea bag pairs was higher in 2015 (12 replicates at the site Gudmedalen and 16 replicates at Låvisdalen). After collection, adhering soil particles and roots were removed and the tea bags were dried (48 h at 60 °C) and weighed. These data are partially described in47, and the full data are provided in35 and can be downloaded using28 (see folder R/download_VCG_data).VCG Species-level cover, biomass, and performance dataA variety of plant species and community composition, cover, biomass, fitness, and reproductive data exists for the sites and blocks in the VCG from 2008 to 2021. These data are described in e.g34,37,38,41,43,44,45,48,49,50, and provided in35.VCG Site-level plant functional traitsIn 2016 and 2017, we measured 11 leaf functional traits that are related to potential physiological growth rates and environmental tolerance of plants, following the standardized protocols in Pérez-Harguindeguy et al.51: leaf area (LA, cm2), leaf thickness (LT, mm), leaf dry matter content (LDMC, g/g), specific leaf area (SLA, cm2/g), carbon (C, %), nitrogen (N, %), phosphorus (P, %), carbon nitrogen ratio (C:N), nitrogen phosphorus ratio (N:P), carbon13 isotope ratio (δ13C, ‰), and nitrogen15 isotope ratio (δ15N, ‰). Trait data are available at the site level for species making up at least 80% of the vegetation cover in the control plots at each of the 12 VCG sites. The plants were collected outside of the experimental plots and within a 50 m perimeter from the blocks, and we aimed to collect up to five individuals from each species in each site. To avoid repeated sampling from a single clone, we selected individuals that were visibly separated from other ramets of that species. The sampled plant individuals were labelled, put in plastic bags with moist paper towels, and stored in darkness at 4 °C until processing, which was done as soon as possible and always within 4 days. These data are described in52, provided in35, and can be downloaded using28 (see folder R/download_VCG_data).Experimental designThe functional group removal experiment was designed to examine the impact of aboveground interactions among the major plant functional groups – graminoids, forbs and bryophytes – on the performance and functioning of other components of the vegetation and ecosystem. The experiment consists of eight 25 × 25 cm plots per site and block, with a fully factorial combination of removals of three plant functional groups, with treatments randomized within each block. The general experimental design, with the different removal treatments detailed, are provided as an insert to the timeline in Fig. 1c. The functional groups are delineated and abbreviated in the various datasets as follows: G = graminoids (including grasses, sedges and rushes), F = forbs (including herbaceous forbs, pteridophytes, dwarf-shrubs, and small individuals of trees and shrubs), B = Bryophytes (including mosses, liverworts, and hornworts). Note that all species are also coded by their respective functional group into which they were classified in the FunCaB taxon table. The experimental treatments are coded by functional group removed so that FGB = bare-ground gaps with all plants removed, FB = only graminoids remaining, GB = only forbs remaining, GF = only bryophytes remaining, B = graminoids and forbs remaining, F = bryophytes and graminoids remaining, G = bryophytes and forbs remaining, and C = intact vegetation controls with no vegetation removed. In 2016, four extra control (XC) plots were marked per site for aboveground biomass harvest and ecosystem carbon flux measurements. This sampling regime gave a total of 384 plots in the core FunCaB experiment, plus the additional 48 controls in 2016.Functional group removals were done once in 2015 (at peak growing season due to late snowmelt), twice per year in 2016 and 2017 (after the spring growth and at peak growing season) and annually from 2018 to 2021 (at peak growing season) as regrowth had declined (see below) and biannual removals were no longer necessary. At each sampling, all above-ground biomass of the relevant plant functional group was removed from each plot as follows: for each plot, all the above-ground parts of the relevant functional group(s) were removed using scissors and tweezers to cut the plants at the ground layer (i.e., the soil-vegetation interface). Roots and other below-ground parts were not removed, and non-target plant functional groups and litter were left intact.Species identification, taxonomy, and floraAll vascular plant species were identified to the species level in the field, with nomenclature following Lid and Lid53. Exceptions are sterile specimens of species that are not possible to identify without reproductive parts, and where flowers are either too rare or individuals too short-lived for comparisons of the position of individuals within the plots over years to be used to ascertain identifications (For example, Alchemilla spp. excluding A. alpina, and the annual Euphrasia spp.). Species identifications were confirmed by comparing records over time as described below. All unidentified specimens are included and flagged in the dataset, as described in Data Records below. The full taxon names are provided in the taxon table on OSF (Fig. 3).Dataset collection methodsDatasets (i–ii): Biomass and functional group removalAs described above, functional group removals were done once in 2015 at peak growing season, and twice per year in 2016 and 2017 (after the spring growth; at peak growing season) and annually at peak growing season from 2018 to 2021. For each removal plot and occasion, a picture was taken of the plot pre-removal, the biomass to be removed was collected in separate pre-marked paper bags for each functional group (graminoids, forbs and bryophytes), and a picture was taken post-removal. The collected biomass was then dried at 60 °C for 48 hours and weighed to the nearest 0.01 g (Model LPG-1002, VWR). From the four extra control (XC) plots in 2016, total above-ground biomass as well as litter (defined as dead biomass detached from live plants, see28) was collected at peak growing season. From these plots, biomass was sorted into functional groups as described above, except the forb functional group, which was sorted into species. The graminoid and bryophyte functional groups, each forb species, and litter were individually dried and weighed as described above. The data is available as (i) a biomass dataset, consisting of the removed biomass per plot, date, removal treatment, and functional group for all treatment plots, and the total biomass per functional group plus litter for the extra control plots in 2016, and (ii) a species-level forb biomass dataset from the extra control plots in 2016 (Fig. 3, Table 1).Datasets (iii-iv) – Soil microclimateWe measured soil temperature 3–5 cm below the soil surface for each plot using iButton temperature sensors (DS1922L, Manufacturer reports temperature accuracy of ±0.5 °C, Maxim Integrated INC., San Jose, CA, USA). The data are reported with a resolution of 0.0625 at 140 min intervals from June 2015 to July 2016. We measured soil moisture as volumetric soil moisture; expressed as % water volume per soil volume ((m3 water /m3 soil) × 100). These measurements were done c. 3–5 times during the growing seasons from 2015–2019, usually in connection with the flux and vegetation measurements, by taking the average of four measurements, one at each side of each plot (SM300, Manufacturer reports accuracy ±2.5% vol over 0 to 50% vol and 0–60 °C, Delta-T Devices, Cambridge, UK). The data is available as (iii) temperature and (iv) volumetric soil moisture % per plot and time point (temperature) or date (moisture) (Fig. 3, Table 1).Dataset (v): Vascular plant community composition and vegetation structureWe recorded the full vascular plant species composition of all experimental plots in 2015 (pre treatment), and the control plots plus the extra control plots in 2016. In 2017, 2018, and 2019, we recorded the community composition in controls and in the functional groups that remained in the experimental plots according to the plot’s treatment. At each analysis, each plot was sub-divided into 25 5 × 5 cm subplots, using a subplot overlay. We first recorded all species of vascular plants in the central five subplots, (i.e., the central + shaped area of each plot, Fig. 1c) noting the subplot cover of each species present in each of the five subplots (1 – 25% = 1, 26 – 50% = 2, 51 – 75% = 3, >76% = 4). Additionally, we noted if the individual was fertile (records circled if buds, flowers, or fruits were present). The five subplots were recorded and numbered (1-5) by row, and from left to right, starting from the top up-slope subplot. For the entire 25 × 25 cm plot, any additional species not present in one of the central subplots were recorded and their fertility noted. We then visually estimated the percentage cover of each vascular plant species in the whole plot to the nearest 1% and measured vegetation height in mm at four points within the plot. Note that the total coverage in each plot can exceed 100% due to layering of the vegetation. The vascular plant vegetation data is available as percentage cover and fertility status (sterile or fertile) per species per subplot and plot per sampling date, and vegetation height in mm per plot per sampling date (Fig. 3, Table 1).Other variables that were measured were percentage cover of bryophytes, litter, bare ground, and rock (measured per plot and per subplot) and moss layer depth in mm (mean of 4 measurements/plot), date of analysis, recorder/scribe (if any), and free-text comments. These data are available as % cover, depth in mm, date (year.month.day) and text strings per subplot and /or plot per sampling date (Fig. 3, Table 1).Dataset (vi): Seedling recruitmentThe total number of forb seedlings that emerged in the plots was recorded in 2018 and 2019. At peak growing season in 2018 (round 1, July-August, depending on site), all dicotyledonous seedlings were marked with wooden toothpicks and their x and y coordinates in the plot (mm, recorded from the bottom left hand-corner of the plot, Fig. 1c) and tentative species identity noted. Toward the end of the growing season (round 2, August-September, depending on site), each plot was revisited, seedling survival established, and any further seedlings marked. Survival (recorded when a seedling was present in subsequent surveys; recorded as mortality if absent) and new seedling emergence were followed up in the same manner in 2019 (rounds 3 and 4, respectively). Species identification was (re)assessed at all censuses and corrected if needed as the seedlings grew and identification uncertainty decreased. New seedlings were differentiated from emergent clonal ramets by looking for cotyledons or signs of above- or below-ground ramet connections. These data are available as talleys of seedlings, each with a status (dead or alive) and species identity (or NA when not identifiable), per subplot and /or plot per sampling round (Fig. 3, Table 1).Dataset (vii): Ecosystem carbon flux data and flux calculationsCarbon flux measurementsEcosystem CO2 fluxes were measured to estimate net ecosystem exchange (NEE), ecosystem respiration (Reco) and gross primary production (GPP). The dataset covers the years 2015, 2016 and 2017, and individual plots have multiple measurements for ecosystem carbon flux per year as detailed below. At peak growing season in 2015, a median of 2 sets of paired carbon flux measurements were measured pre-removal for all plots, where a paired set consist of a light and a dark flux measurement of an individual plot. In 2016, a median of 8 sets of paired measurements were made for all control plots, and a median of 7 for the 4 extra controls (see experimental design above). In the data files, some additional measurements exist for other experiments in the VCG sites (a median of 7 paired sets of measurements for controls (TTC) and graminoid removal plots (RTC), see42 for a presentation of this experiment and35 for technical details). In 2017, a median of 5 paired sets of measurements were made for all treated plots in nine of the sites, excluding the second wettest precipitation level (sites Gudmedalen, Rambera, and Arhelleren). These measurements were made ca. 1 week after the first round of plant functional group removals in that season.At each sampling occasion, a clear chamber (25 × 25 × 40 cm) equipped with two fans for air circulation and connected to an infrared gas analyzer (Li-840; Manufacturer reports accuracy within 1.5% of the reading value; LI-COR Biosciences, Lincoln, NE, USA) was used to measure CO2 fluxes at all plots. To prevent cutting of roots and disruption of water flow in the plots by installing collars, we instead attached a windshield to the bottom of the chamber and weighed it down on the ground by a heavy chain to prevent wind-air mixing. At each sampling occasion we made paired measurements of fluxes under light and dark conditions, covering the chamber with a fitted light-excluding cover for the dark measurements.NEE was estimated from measurements of CO2 flux under ambient light and dark conditions: NEElight = GPP – Reco, NEEdark = (-) Reco. We define NEE such that negative values reflect CO2 uptake in the ecosystem, and positive values reflect CO2 release from the ecosystem to the atmosphere. For each measurement, CO2 concentration was recorded at 5 s intervals over a period of 90–120 s. NEE was calculated from the temporal change of CO2 concentration within the closed chamber according to the following formula:$$NEE=frac{delta C{O}_{2}}{delta t}times frac{PV}{Rtimes Atimes (T+273.15)}$$where (delta frac{C{O}_{2}}{delta t}) is the slope of the CO2 concentration against time (µmol mol−1 s−1), P is the atmospheric pressure (kPa), R is the gasconstante (8.314 kPa m3 K−1 mol−1), T is the air temperature inside the chamber (°C), V is the chamber volume (m3) and A is the surface area (m2).Light intensity was measured as photosynthetically active radiation (PAR, µmol m−2 s−1) using a quantum sensor (Li-190; Manufacturer reports absolute calibration accuracy of ±5%; LI-COR Biosciences, Lincoln, NE, USA) placed inside the chamber. Temperature inside the chamber was measured using an iButton temperature logger (DS1922L, Manufacturer reports temperature accuracy of ±0.5 °C, Maxim Integrated, San Jose, CA, USA). Volumetric soil moisture content (m3 water/m3 soil) × 100 was measured by calculating the average of four measurements with a soil moisture sensor (SM300, Manufacturer reports moisture accuracy of ±2.5%, Delta-T Devices, Cambridge, UK), taken at each side of a plot.Data management and calculationsData from the LiCOR data logger and iButton was downloaded in the field and stored. The information from the field data sheets (metadata of CO2 measurements and plot soil moisture) was manually entered into digital worksheets, manually proof-read and stored. Data from the data logger (PAR and CO2) and the iButton temperature logger were linked based on information from the field data sheets. All measurements were first visually evaluated for quality and only measurements that showed a consistent linear relationship between CO2 over a time for a period of at least 60 s were used for NEE calculations. A second inclusion criterion was that this relationship had R2 ≤ 0.2 or R2 ≥ 0.8 for NEE measurement in light conditions and R2 ≥ 0.8 for NEE dark measurements (Reco). Measurements of NEE in light conditions with R2 ≤ 0.2 ensures representation of measurements with equal rates for Reco and GPP. Third, paired measurements that were more than 2 h apart were excluded. These data are available as raw fluxes and as GPP and Reco per plot per measurement (Fig. 3, Table 1).Dataset (vi): ReflectanceReflectance measures of Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) were taken for each plot during the 2019 (post functional group removal) and 2021 (pre and post removal) field seasons (July-August), using a Trimble Greenseeker Handheld Crop Sensor (Trimble Inc., Sunnydale, CA, USA). As the sensor measures an elliptical plane, two measures perpendicular to each other were taken for each subplot (25 × 25 cm plot), with the centre of each ellipse being the centre of the subplot. Care was taken to ensure that sampling quadrat frames were not within the sensor range when conducting measurements (see methods Dataset ii). Measures of NDVI were taken at 60 cm above the surface where possible. Height was measured perpendicular to the sampled ground surface. These data are available as reflectance per plot per sampling date (Fig. 3, Table 1). More