Ecology

In the present work, we extend the base model for the spatial mosquito population dynamics24 to include wild male mosquitoes and genetically modified male mosquitoes. Thus, five populations will be considered: the aquatic mosquito population, including larvae and pupae, the egg mosquito population, the reproductive female mosquito population, the wild male mosquito population, and the genetically modified male population. Similar approaches can be found in the literature25,26.In the following system, we represent mosquito population densities (mosquitoes per m(^2)) by: E – in the egg phase, A – in the aquatic phase, F – female in the reproductive phase, M – wild males, and G – genetically modified male mosquitoes. Due to the very high resistance of the egg phase (up to 450 days27) and as we are interested in an urban spatial macro-scale modeling, we do not consider the mortality in the egg phase. The model is described by the following system of partial differential equations:$$begin{aligned} {left{ begin{array}{ll} partial _t E &{} = alpha beta F M -e E, \ partial _t A &{} = e left( 1 – dfrac{A}{k} right) E -(eta _a+{mu _a})A, \ partial _t F &{} = nabla cdot (D_m nabla F) -mu _f F + reta _{a} A, \ partial _t M &{} = nabla cdot (D_m nabla M) -mu _m M + (1-r)eta _{a} A, \ partial _t G &{} = nabla cdot (D_g nabla G) -mu _{g}G + l, end{array}right. } end{aligned}$$
(1)
where ( alpha ) represents the proportion of wild male mosquitoes to the total number of male mosquitoes (wild males + genetically modified males); (beta ) represents the expected quantity of eggs from the successful encounter between wild females and males; e is the egg hatching rate; k is the carrying capacity of the aquatic phase; ( eta _a ) is the emergence rate for mosquitoes from the aquatic phase to the female or male phases; ( mu _a), (mu _f), (mu _m), and (mu _{g}) are the mortality rates of mosquitoes in the aquatic phase, females, males, and genetically modified males, respectively; r is the proportion of females to males (typically (r=0.5)); (l=l(x,y,t)) is the function representing the number of genetically modified mosquitoes released in a unit of time at any point of the domain; (D_m) is the diffusion coefficient of wild mobiles females and males; (D_g) is the diffusion coefficient of genetically modified males. The proposed model (1) can naturally deal with heterogeneous parameters, such as mortality, diffusion, and carrying capacity coefficients. Thus it is possible to model the influence of rain, wind, and human action. In the context of this work, we are considering that the city neighborhood is divided into two environments: houses and streets. Due to lack of data, we restrict the investigated heterogeneity only to the carrying capacity coefficient.The proposed model can be regarded as an extension of other “economic” models20,24 in the effort to qualitatively reproduce the complex phenomena by using as few parameters as possible. Following this idea, the carrying capacity was neglected in the egg phase because of the skip oviposition phenomenon28 i.e., the female lays the number of eggs that the place holds, without more space, she migrates to other environments to finish laying the eggs. We also do not consider this coefficient in the winged phase as limitations in the winged phase were not reported in any study. On the other hand, we consider it in the aquatic phases (larvae and pupae), where it is effective29.The term ( alpha ), which multiplies the probability of encounters between male and female, represents the impact of the insertion of genetically modified males in the mosquito population to the immobile phase and is defined as$$begin{aligned} alpha = left{ begin{array}{cc} 1, &{} text{ if } M=G= 0, \ dfrac{M}{M + G}, &{} text{ otherwise }. end{array} right. end{aligned}$$
(2)
Similar modeling approach can be found in the literature16. As the release rate of genetically modified males increases, the alpha value decreases, and, consequently, the probability of encounter between females and wild males also decreases. Thus, there is a greater probability of encounter between genetically modified males and females. This approach presents an advantage, when compared to the models found in the literature25, as System  (1) does not present singularities at the equilibrium states, allowing mathematical analysis and numerical simulations. From the biological point of view, the increment of male wild mosquitoes over some critical value does not affect the egg deposition. At first glance, the term FM can lead to a misunderstanding that such property is not satisfied in the presented model. However, in Section “Equilibrium points considering the application of genetically modified male mosquitoes,” we argue that both male and female populations possess mathematical attractor equilibria, blocking the wild male population from growing beyond this value.Finally, any acceptable population model should be invariant in the definition domain, meaning its solution does not present senseless values. Setting the variable domain as$$begin{aligned} 0 le E(x,y,t)< infty ,;; 0 le A(x,y,t) le k, ;; 0 le F(x,y,t)< infty ,;; 0 le M(x,y,t)< infty ,;; 0 le G(x,y,t) < infty , end{aligned}$$ (3) we can verify that it is invariant under the time evolution by the System (1). To prove this statement, it is sufficient to verify that the vector field defined by the right side of (1) points into the domain when (E, A, F, M, G) approaches the domain boundary. When E approaches zero, the right side of the first equation in (1) is not negative. When A approaches zero, the right side of the second equation in (1) is not negative. When A approaches k (bottom), the first term on the right side of the second equation in (1) tends to zero, while the second term remains negative. Since the term ( nabla cdot (D_m nabla F) ) cannot change the F sign, when F approaches zero, the right side of the third equation in (1) is not negative Since the term ( nabla cdot (D_m nabla M) ) cannot change the M sign, when M approaches zero, the right side of the fourth equation in (1) is not negative. Since the term ( nabla cdot (D_g nabla G) ) cannot change the G sign, when G approaches zero, the right side of the fifth equation in (1) is not negative. In the rest of this section, let us explain how to estimate one-by-one all the parameters used in this model from experimental data available in the literature. It is a challenging task as, typically, the development of the Ae. aegypti mosquito depends on food variation30, temperature variations14,15 and rainfall31. This data is not available in the literature in the organized and systematic form. Because of that, we assume the environment is under optimal conditions of temperature, availability of food, and humidity.How to estimate emergence rate ((eta _a)) The emergence rate describes the rate at which the aquatic phase of the mosquito emerges into the adult phases. In the present model, for simplicity, it was considered that no mosquito from the crossing between genetically modified males and females reaches adulthood. Thus, the emergence rate is calculated on the crossing between females and wild males. Under optimal conditions and feeding distribution, based on the literature30, the emergence rate is 0.5596 (text{ day}^{-1}).How to estimate diffusion coefficients ((D_m,D_g)) The diffusion coefficient is one of the most important parameters describing the mosquitoes’ movement. We use the methodology proposed in the previous work24 to obtain the diffusion coefficient of adult mosquitoes (females and males) and genetically modified males.The estimate is done by assuming that all mosquitoes are released at (0, 0), and their movement is described by the corresponding equation in (1) neglecting other terms than diffusion. The population starts spreading in all directions. We define the spreading distance R(t) as the radius of the region centered in (0, 0) where (90%) of the initial mosquitoes population density is present. In Silva et al.24 it is shown that$$begin{aligned} R(t) = sqrt{4Dt} ;text {erf}^{-1}(0.9). end{aligned}$$ (4) Now corresponding diffusion coefficient is estimated by using the average flight distance of the mosquitoes and the characteristic time related to their life expectancy. Under favorable weather conditions, the average lifetime flight distance of females and males is approximately32,33 65 m, while the same for GM males is34 67.3 m. Based on the literature, we consider that the characteristic time for wild females and males32 is 7 days, and the same for genetically modified males is34 2.17 days. Using (4) we estimate the values for (D_m) and (D_g) summarized in Table 1. It would be natural to consider that the mosquitoes’ movement changes in different environments. Unfortunately, we were unable to find the corresponding experimental data, and because of that, we considered that (D_m) and (D_g) are the same in streets and house blocks.How to estimate mortality rates ((mu _a), (mu _f), (mu _m), (mu _{g}))The mortality coefficient represents an average quantity of mosquitoes in the corresponding phase dying each day. As mentioned before, we disregard the mortality rate in the egg phase, as it is negligible due to its great durability27, it does not affect the numerical results, and it complicates analytical estimates. Thus, the aquatic phase mortality rate coefficient is equal to the same for larvae’s coefficient, which is approximately29 (mu _a = 0.025) (1/day).There is no solid agreement on the mortality rate of male and female wild mosquitoes in the literature. Although some results29,30 suggest they are similar, we follow these authors and consider them equal. Considering both natural death and accidental ones, approximately (10%) of females and male mosquitoes in the adult phase die at each day35. Under optimal conditions, the mortality coefficient can be estimated from this data by using the proposed model (1) by neglecting diffusion and emergence terms in the corresponding equation; details can be found in the previous work24. The resulting parameter values are summarized in Table 1.It would be natural to consider that the mosquitoes mortality rate depends on the environment. Unfortunately, we were unable to find the corresponding experimental data, and because of that, we considered that (mu _a), (mu _f), (mu _m), and (mu _{g}) are the same in streets and house blocks.How to estimate the expected egg number ((beta ))This coefficient represents the average quantity of eggs a wild female lays per day, assuming a successful meeting with a wild male. Considering the number of times a female lays eggs in its lifetime36, the average quantity of eggs per lay and the mosquito’s life expectancy, under favorable conditions, this coefficient is estimated as (beta = 34).How to estimate the hatching rate (e)This coefficient determines the average number of eggs hatching in one day. Experimental data37 suggest that, under optimal humidity conditions, the mean value of the hatch rate coefficient is 0.24 given a temperature of 28 ((^{circ })C), which is considered ideal for mosquito development. This is the value used in the present work.How to estimate carrying capacity coefficient (k)The carrying capacity k represents the space limitation of one phase due to situations present in the environment37,38, such as competition for food among the larvae39. In general, it depends on external factors such as food availability, climate, terrain properties, making direct estimation almost impossible. In the Analytical results section, we show how to estimate this coefficient for each grid block. When considering spatial population dynamics in a heterogeneous environment, carrying capacity is one of the most influential parameters as it varies significantly. For example, house block offer more food and a shelter against natural predators resulting to a larger carrying capacity when compared with street environment. Following the literature32 we assume that the 80% of the mosquito’s breeding places are in houses resulting in the relation (k_h=5k_s), where (k_h) and (k_s) are the carrying capacities of the house blocks and in the streets.Genetically modified mosquitoes release rate (l)Function l(x, y, t) determines how many genetically modified mosquitoes are released in the location (x, y) at time t.In a normal situation, the sex ratio between males and females is 1 : 1. The increment of this proportion favoring GM males increases the probability of females to mate with these mosquitoes. As reported in the literature12,30 the initial launch size is 11 times larger than the adult female population, and it is done in some spots in the city. In this work, we analyze different release strategies maintaining the (11times 1) proportion in some scenarios.Table 1 All parameter values are directly taken or estimated from the literature as explained in section Modeling.Full size table More

DesignPlant richness. Sixteen locally frequent native plant species in the barren mountain areas (around Taizhou University, Zhejiang, China) invaded by the exotic plant Symphyotrichum subulatum60 were selected as the native species pool. These species were chosen because they spanned the dicotyledon plant taxonomy (including 7 Orders, 10 Families, and 14 Genus, in the Class Magnoliopsida), differed widely in their functional traits (related to height, life form, dominance in local communities, and leaf habit) (Supplementary Table 3), and were occasionally found to be associated with the invasive species Symphyotrichum subulatum60 in the local secondary-succession communities. With this species pool, we were able to imitate the locally natural, spatially stochastic, compositionally ruderal, and functionally varied plant community61, which is a typical attribute of the secondary-succession communities in the local barren mountains invaded by the exotic plant Symphyotrichum subulatum. Based on this native species pool, monocultures of each species (16 total), and random mixtures of 2, 4 or 8 species (with 10, 10, or 9 distinct assemblages, respectively) were designed, creating a complete set (Fig. 1d) of 45 different plant assemblages (pots) in total. Each plant assemblage was replicated 6 times, for a total of 270 pots. To eliminate the non-random effects during the 1-year development of the 270 pots, their distributions were randomized, such that not all replicates of an assemblage were next to each other (Fig. 1d–f).DroughtAfter 1-year development of the native plant assemblages, three drought treatments (non-, moderate-, and intensive-drought) were manipulated by adjusting irrigation using automatic drip irrigation systems, with 100%, 50%, and 25% of the equivalent to the amount received in the areas where native species were collected, respectively. Two random complete sets were selected for each drought treatment, each complete set being composed of 45 different plant assemblages (Fig. 1d–f).Exotic plant invasionNine months after drought treatment, the two complete sets (Fig. 1d) of each drought treatment were randomly exposed (invasion) or not exposed to (non-invasion) the invasive species Symphyotrichum subulatum (Michx.) G. L. Nesom (Fig. 1e, f). S. subulatum, an annual herbaceous plant native to North America, is a common invasive species in the subtropical and tropical regions of China18,60, and tends to interact with the native species via, for example, competing for space and resources62,63, enriching for pathogens or herbivores, and changing soil faunal, bacterial or fungal microbiomes18,64,65.ExperimentThe experiment based on the design mentioned above was conducted at Taizhou University, Zhejiang province, China (28.66°N, 121.39°E). The seeds of the 16 native plant species (Supplementary Table 3) and the soil were collected from nearby mountain areas (Wugui, 28.65°N, 121.38°E; Baiyun, 28.67°N, 121.42°E; Beigu, 28.86°N, 121.11°E). The seed-mixtures were obtained by mixing seeds of the 16 species pro rata, in proportion to germination rates. The soil (fine-loamy, mixed, semiative, mosic, Humic Hapludults) was sieved to pass a 2-mm mesh, and thoroughly mixed. 270 plastic pots (72 cm length × 64 cm width × 42 cm depth) were prepared, and each was filled with a 27-cm soil layer, followed by a 10-cm mixture of soil and vermiculite-compost to provide water-, air- and fertility-support for germination, seedling establishment, and plant growth (Supplementary Table 4).Native plant assemblagesAll the 270 pots were placed inside a plastic shelter, which allowed for both air ventilation and protection from rain. Each pot was sown with a seed-mixture of ca. 800 seeds. One month after germination, for each pot, the undesired seedlings were removed manually according to the plant richness design (Fig. 1d–f), and thus 32 vigorous seedlings (with the same number of seedlings per species, e.g., 4 seedlings for each species of the 8-species mixtures) were spatial-evenly retained. In this manner, the plant richness was manipulated for each plant assemblage. During the development of the 270 plant assemblages, the soil volumetric water content was controlled at ca. 20%, which was similar to that of the nearby mountainous soil, using the automatic drip irrigation systems. Weeds and undesired species were removed monthly (Fig. 1f).Drought treatmentAfter 1-year development of native plant assemblages, the drought treatments (non-, moderate-, and intensive-drought) were manipulated according to the experimental design mentioned above (Fig. 1d, e). Two complete sets (Fig. 1d) of different plant assemblages (2 × 45 pots) were selected for each drought treatment. Every other week, 40 pots each drought treatment were randomly selected for measuring soil water content and soil temperature at the depth of 0–20 cm, using the ProCheck analyzer (Decagon, Pullman, Washington, USA), and irrigation was adjusted accordingly using automatic drip irrigation systems. The irrigation for non-, moderate-, or intensive-drought was adjusted to accomplish an irrigation level amounts to 100%, 50%, or 25% that of the mountain areas where seeds were collected. Because of the distinct seasonal temperature and evaporation conditions, the irrigation frequencies were approximately daily in May-September, every other day in March–April and October–December, and weekly in January–February. With this manipulation, the volumetric soil water contents of non-, moderate-, and intensive-drought were controlled within ranges of 13.8–23.4%, 6.8–13.7%, and 1.4–7.4%, respectively, throughout the manipulation of drought treatment (Fig. 1e, f). Eight months after drought introduction, fresh litter was collected form the two replicate pots of each drought treatment, and then oven-dried at 40 °C, cut into ca. 2-cm pieces, and filled into litterbags (2-g litter in each litterbag).Invasion treatmentNine months after drought introduction, one complete set (45 pots) of the plant assemblages (Fig. 1d) from each drought treatment, was chosen and exposed to invasion disturbance by sowing 50 seeds of S. subulatum in each pot, and the other was specified as the non-invasion treatment (Fig. 1e, f). The prepared litterbags were embedded under the litter-layer of each pot (5 litterbags in each pot), correspondingly.SamplingSix months after invasion introduction, one litterbag was collected for litter-fauna extraction. Nine months after invasion, five soil cores (20-cm depth) were collected with augers (6.4 cm in diameter) and mixed for extraction of soil-fauna, and measurement of soil property and enzyme activity (Fig. 1f). The aboveground biomass of both native and invasive plants in each pot was harvested, sorted to species, oven-dried to a constant mass at 80 °C, and weighed. The belowground plant biomass was also sampled, sorted to native and invasive groups, oven-dried, and weighed (Fig. 1f).Plant, litter-, and soil-faunal communitiesPlant communitySince exotic plant invasion was treated as a disturbance factor, the biomass of the invasive species S. subulatum was not included for analyses concerning plant community and ecosystem (multi)functionality. The aboveground biomasses of native plant species in each of the 270 pots were collected for plant community analysis.Litter- and soil-faunal communitiesOne litterbag or fifty grams of mixed-soil samples were used for litter- or soil-fauna extraction using a Tullgren funnel apparatus (dry funnel method)66. The obtained microarthropods were stored in 70% alcohol, identified with double-tube anatomical lens, and classified to Family level. For both litter and soil samples, the numbers (abundances) of all faunal taxa were counted for litter/soil-faunal community analysis.Phylogenetic information of plant, litter-, and soil-faunal communitiesSimilar procedures were used to construct the plant and faunal phylogenetic trees. First, protein sequences of 12 faunal mitochondrial coding genes and 16 plant plastid coding genes (Supplementary Data 1) were obtained by searching plant or faunal taxonomies from NCBI protein database (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/protein/) with Edirect software (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK179288/). All available sequences at plant species level or faunal Family level were fetched. If unavailable, the missing sequences were sampled from plant genus or faunal Order level. Sequoiadendron giganteum and Echinococcus were specified as out-group references for plant and faunal trees, respectively. Then, the sequences of each plant or faunal taxon were clustered at 97% or 90% identity independently, and the centroids were used as representative markers. The markers were aligned with MUSCLE67, followed by concatenation. Finally, using MEGA X68, the maximum likelihood trees were constructed based on BioNJ initial trees69 and 500 bootstrap checking nodal support. The parameters for plant tree construction were specified as follow: 70% partial deletion (with 4824 positions retained) and the best-fit substitution model JTT + G + I + F70,71; parameters for faunal tree: 90% partial deletion (2778 positions) and LG + G + I + F model71,72. The Linux codes for processing the protein sequences were submitted to GitHub (https://github.com/YuanGe-Lab/JZW_2022/tree/main/linux)The plant and faunal taxonomies, representative markers, and marker accessions are provided as Supplementary Data 1.Ecosystem function-related variablesA total of 14 individual function-related variables were collected. These variables belonged to three functional groups: (1) biomass production, including aboveground and belowground biomass of native plants, light interception efficiency, litter-fauna abundance, and soil-fauna abundance; (2) soil properties, including contents of soil organic carbon, soil nitrogen, soil phosphorus, and GRSP (relating to soil physical properties and stocks of carbon and nutrient73); and (3) processes, including rate of litter decomposition, and activities of β-glucosidase, protease, nitrate reductase and dehydrogenase.Light interception efficiency, the fraction of incident photosynthetically active radiation (PAR) intercepted by each plant community canopy, was determined between 12:00 and 14:00 on clear days using LI-191R line PAR sensors (LI-COR Inc., NE, USA), and the mean of 4 measurements (monthly from May to August the third year; Fig. 1f) was used. Total soil organic carbon and nitrogen were measured with an elemental analyzer (vario Max; Elementar, Germany). Total soil phosphorus was determined using the molybdenum blue method with a UV–visible spectrophotometer (Shimadzu, Kyoto, Japan). GRSP was determined using the method described by Shen et al.18. Litter decomposition rate was assessed by embedding litterbags and fitting litter mass loss against decomposition time (Fig. 1f). Enzyme activities were analyzed by the spectrophotometric method using the substrates, p-Nitrophenyl-β-d-glucopyranoside (pNPG; for β-glucosidase), caseinate (protease), nitrate (nitrate reductase) and triphenyltetrazolium chloride (TTC; dehydrogenase)18.Quantifying community stability and multifunctional stabilityCommunity data was comprised of native plant biomasses or faunal abundances, and the associated phylogenetic information. Multifunctionality data was comprised of 14 function-related variables, each variable (V) being transformed (V’) using the formula ({V}^{{prime} }=frac{V-{{{{{rm{min }}}}}}left(Vright)}{{{{{{rm{sd}}}}}}left(Vright)}) to guarantee even contribution to global variance. We calculated community similarity (1 minus Weighted-UniFrac distance) and multifunctional similarity (1 minus Bray–Curtis distance), based on the community data and the multifunctionality data, respectively. The specific subsets of each symmetric similarity matrix were used to assess three different aspects of stability: (1) Invariability (against stochastic fluctuations), reflected as the pairwise similarities (1476 pairs) within treatment groups, at same plant richness*drought*invasion condition; (2) Drought resistance, the similarities (2148 pairs) between drought (moderate- and intensive-drought) and non-drought treatments, at same plant richness*invasion condition; and (3) Invasion resistance, the similarities (n = 1611 pairs) between invasion and non-invasion treatments, at same plant richness*drought condition (Supplementary Fig. 1).We also assessed the three aspects of stability of each individual function in a similar way, but by calculating the similarity using the formula ({{{{{{{mathrm{SIM}}}}}}}}_{{ij}}=1-frac{|{V}_{i}-{V}_{j}|}{{V}_{i}+{V}_{j}}) (Vi and Vj are ith and jth elements in a function vector; SIMij is the similarity between Vi and Vj).Statistics and reproducibilityPERMANOVA (10,000 randomizations) was conducted to test the influences of the manipulated factors on ecosystem multifunctionality or communities of plant, litter- and soil-fauna, using “vegan::adonis” in R74. Mantel test (10,000 randomizations; Spearman’s R) was conducted to test the community-community or the community-multifunctionality relationships, using “vegan::mantel” in R74.As each similarity-pair of each aspect of community or multifunctional stability mentioned above was in strict correspondence to single level of each manipulated factor (plant richness, drought, and invasion) (Supplementary Fig.  1), the direct/indirect effects of treatments on the community or multifunctional stability can be assessed using SEM. To test direct and indirect effects (by modulating community stability) of the manipulated factors on multifunctional stability, we built three SEMs (Fig. 1a–c) based on three different aspects of stability (i.e., invariability, drought resistance, and invasion resistance) under the conditions of corresponding parings of manipulated factors (Supplementary Fig. 1), with the LAVAAN package75. The standardized paths (direct effects) in SEMs can be conceived as the partial correlations after teasing all side effects away. Bootstrapping with 10,000 randomizations was conducted to generate the unbiased mean effect. The significance of effect was tested using a Mantel-like permutation (10,000 randomizations) test76, where the null hypotheses (H0) were that the independent factors plant richness, drought, and invasion, had no direct/indirect effects (effect = 0) on multifunctional stability. Based on H0, permutation procedure was conducted by permuting the index of dependent factors (both columns and rows of a symmetric matrix; Supplementary Fig. 1) simultaneously to gain null models and null effects. p-values (probability of H0 acceptance) were calculated as the percentage of observed positive (or negative) effect that was greater (or less) than the null effects. We also assessed the direct and indirect effects of factors on the stability of each individual function based on the same SEMs, to consolidate our findings on multifunctional stability. The R codes and examples solving the permutation test for the significance of effects derived from SEMs that based on multidimensional similarity (or distance) were submitted to GitHub (https://github.com/YuanGe-Lab/JZW_2022/tree/main/R). All the analyses were conducted using R (https://www.r-project.org).Reporting summaryFurther information on research design is available in the Nature Research Reporting Summary linked to this article. More

Woese, C. R., Kandler, O. & Wheelis, M. L. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 87, 4576–4579 (1990).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Sapp, J. Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. 69, 292–305 (2005).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Chatton, É. Ann. Sci. Nat. Zool. 8, 1–84 (1925).
Google Scholar 
Soyer-Gobillard, M.-O. & Schrevel, J. The Discoveries and Artistic Talents of Édouard Chatton and André Lwoff, Famous Biologists (Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2020).Macfarlane, J. M. The Causes and Course of Organic Evolution: A Study in Bioenergics (Macmillan, 1918).Haeckel, E. Systematische Phylogenie. Erster Theil (Verlag von Georg Reimer, 1894).Stanier, R. Y., Douderoff, M. & Adelberg, E. The Microbial World 2nd edn (Prentice Hall, 1963).Williams, T. A., Cox, C. J., Foster, P. G., Szöllősi, G. J. & Embley, T. M. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 4, 138–147 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Steckbeck, W. Science 98, 487–488 (1943).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Creese, M. R. S. & Creese, T. M. Ladies in the Laboratory III (Scarecrow Press, 2010). More

Mariotte, P. et al. Plant–soil feedback: Bridging natural and agricultural sciences. Trends Ecol. Evol. 33, 129–142 (2018).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Daryanto, S., Fu, B., Wang, L., Jacinthe, P. A. & Zhao, W. Quantitative synthesis on the ecosystem services of cover crops. Earth-Sci. Rev. 185, 357–373 (2018).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Shackelford, G. E., Kelsey, R. & Dicks, L. V. Effects of cover crops on multiple ecosystem services: Ten meta-analyses of data from arable farmland in California and the Mediterranean. Land Use Policy 88, 104204 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
McDaniel, M. D., Tiemann, L. K. & Grandy, A. S. Does agricultural crop diversity enhance soil microbial biomass and organic matter dynamics? A meta-analysis. Ecol. Appl. 24, 560–570 (2014).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Wittwer, R. A., Dorn, B., Jossi, W. & van der Heijden, M. G. A. A. Cover crops support ecological intensification of arable cropping systems. Sci. Rep. 7, 41911 (2017).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Chahal, I. & Van Eerd, L. L. Cover crops increase tomato productivity and reduce nitrogen losses in a temperate humid climate. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst. 119, 195–211 (2021).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Belfry, K. D., Trueman, C., Vyn, R. J., Loewen, S. A. & Van Eerd, L. L. Winter cover crops on processing tomato yield, quality, pest pressure, nitrogen availability, and profit margins. PLoS ONE 12, 1–17 (2017).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Wall, L. G. et al. Changes of paradigms in agriculture soil microbiology and new challenges in microbial ecology. Acta Oecologica 95, 68–73 (2019).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Schmidt, R., Gravuer, K., Bossange, A. V., Mitchell, J. & Scow, K. Long-term use of cover crops and no-till shift soil microbial community life strategies in agricultural soil. PLoS ONE 13, 1–19 (2018).
Google Scholar 
Schmidt, R., Mitchell, J. & Scow, K. Cover cropping and no-till increase diversity and symbiotroph:saprotroph ratios of soil fungal communities. Soil Biol. Biochem. 129, 99–109 (2019).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Ali, A. et al. Hiseq base molecular characterization of soil microbial community, diversity structure, and predictive functional profiling in continuous cucumber planted soil affected by diverse cropping systems in an intensive greenhouse region of Northern China. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 20, 2619 (2019).CAS 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Kim, N., Zabaloy, M. C., Guan, K. & Villamil, M. B. Do cover crops benefit soil microbiome? A meta-analysis of current research. Soil Biol. Biochem. 142, 107701 (2020).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Vukicevich, E., Lowery, T., Bowen, P., Úrbez-Torres, J. R. & Hart, M. Cover crops to increase soil microbial diversity and mitigate decline in perennial agriculture. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 36, 1–14 (2016).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Nevins, C. J., Nakatsu, C. & Armstrong, S. Characterization of microbial community response to cover crop residue decomposition. Soil Biol. Biochem. 127, 39–49 (2018).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Peralta, A. L., Sun, Y., McDaniel, M. D. & Lennon, J. T. Crop rotational diversity increases disease suppressive capacity of soil microbiomes. Ecosphere 9, e02235 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Cloutier, M. L. et al. Fungal community shifts in soils with varied cover crop treatments and edaphic properties. Sci. Rep. 10, 1–15 (2020).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Finney, D. M., Buyer, J. S. & Kaye, J. P. Living cover crops have immediate impacts on soil microbial community structure and function. J. Soil Water Conserv. 72, 361–373 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Calderón, F. J., Nielsen, D., Acosta-Martínez, V., Vigil, M. F. & Lyon, D. Cover crop and irrigation effects on soil microbial communities and enzymes in semiarid agroecosystems of the central great plains of North America. Pedosphere 26, 192–205 (2016).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Romdhane, S. et al. Cover crop management practices rather than composition of cover crop mixtures affect bacterial communities in no-till agroecosystems. Front. Microbiol. 10, 1–11 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Blanco-Canqui, H. & Lal, R. Crop residue removal impacts on soil productivity and environmental quality. CRC. Crit. Rev. Plant Sci. 28, 139–163 (2009).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Turmel, M. S., Speratti, A., Baudron, F., Verhulst, N. & Govaerts, B. Crop residue management and soil health: A systems analysis. Agric. Syst. 134, 6–16 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Yang, Q., Wang, X. & Shen, Y. Comparison of soil microbial community catabolic diversity between rhizosphere and bulk soil induced by tillage or residue retention. J. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-95162013005000017 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Tang, H. et al. Tillage and crop residue incorporation effects on soil bacterial diversity in the double-cropping paddy field of southern China. Arch. Agron. Soil Sci. 67, 435–446 (2021).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Zhang, Y. et al. Long-term harvest residue retention could decrease soil bacterial diversities probably due to favouring oligotrophic lineages. Microb. Ecol. 76, 771–781 (2018).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Zhang, C. et al. Straw retention efficiently improves fungal communities and functions in the fallow ecosystem. BMC Microbiol. 21, 52 (2021).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Chahal, I. & Van Eerd, L. L. Cover crop and crop residue removal effects on temporal dynamics of soil carbon and nitrogen in a temperate, humid climate. PLoS ONE 15, e0235665 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Chahal, I. & Van Eerd, L. L. Evaluation of commercial soil health tests using a medium-term cover crop experiment in a humid, temperate climate. Plant Soil 427, 351–367 (2018).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Ruis, S. J. & Blanco-Canqui, H. Cover crops could offset crop residue removal effects on soil carbon and other properties: A review. Agron. J. 109, 1785–1805 (2017).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Zhao, M. et al. Intercropping affects genetic potential for inorganic nitrogen cycling by root-associated microorganisms in Medicago sativa and Dactylis glomerata. Appl. Soil Ecol. 119, 260–266 (2017).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Wardle, D. A. et al. Ecological linkages between aboveground and belowground biota. Science (80-). 304, 1629–1633 (2004).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Xiong, C. et al. Host selection shapes crop microbiome assembly and network complexity. New Phytol. 229, 1091–1104 (2021).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
McDaniel, M. D., Grandy, A. S., Tiemann, L. K. & Weintraub, M. N. Eleven years of crop diversification alters decomposition dynamics of litter mixtures incubated with soil. Ecosphere 7, e01426 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Buyer, J. S., Teasdale, J. R., Roberts, D. P., Zasada, I. A. & Maul, J. E. Factors affecting soil microbial community structure in tomato cropping systems. Soil Biol. Biochem. 42, 831–841 (2010).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Fernandez-Gnecco, G. et al. Microbial community analysis of soils under different soybean cropping regimes in the Argentinean south-eastern Humid Pampas. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 97, 1–14 (2021).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Semenov, M. V., Krasnov, G. S., Semenov, V. M. & van Bruggen, A. H. C. Long-term fertilization rather than plant species shapes rhizosphere and bulk soil prokaryotic communities in agroecosystems. Appl. Soil Ecol. 154, 103641 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
White, C. M. & Weil, R. R. Forage radish cover crops increase soil test phosphorus surrounding radish taproot holes. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 75, 121–130 (2011).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Schulz, M., Marocco, A., Tabaglio, V., Macias, F. A. & Molinillo, J. M. G. Benzoxazinoids in rye allelopathy—From discovery to application in sustainable weed control and organic farming. J. Chem. Ecol. 39, 154–174 (2013).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Cheng, F. & Cheng, Z. Research progress on the use of plant allelopathy in agriculture and the physiological and ecological mechanisms of allelopathy. Front. Plant Sci. 6, 1020 (2015).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Thapa, V. R., Ghimire, R., Acosta-Martínez, V., Marsalis, M. A. & Schipanski, M. E. Cover crop biomass and species composition affect soil microbial community structure and enzyme activities in semiarid cropping systems. Appl. Soil Ecol. 157, 103735 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Drost, S. M., Rutgers, M., Wouterse, M., de Boer, W. & Bodelier, P. L. E. Decomposition of mixtures of cover crop residues increases microbial functional diversity. Geoderma 361, 114060 (2020).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Di Rauso Simeone, G., Müller, M., Felgentreu, C. & Glaser, B. Soil microbial biomass and community composition as affected by cover crop diversity in a short-term field experiment on a podzolized Stagnosol-Cambisol. J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci. 183, 539–549 (2020).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Maul, J. E. et al. Microbial community structure and abundance in the rhizosphere and bulk soil of a tomato cropping system that includes cover crops. Appl. Soil Ecol. 77, 42–50 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Huang, J. et al. Allocation and turnover of rhizodeposited carbon in different soil microbial groups. Soil Biol. Biochem. 150, 107973 (2020).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Strickland, M. S. & Rousk, J. Considering fungal:bacterial dominance in soils—Methods, controls, and ecosystem implications. Soil Biol. Biochem. 42, 1385–1395 (2010).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Leff, J. W. et al. Predicting the structure of soil communities from plant community taxonomy, phylogeny, and traits. ISME J. 12, 1794–1805 (2018).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Milcu, A. et al. Functionally and phylogenetically diverse plant communities key to soil biota. Ecology 94, 1878–1885 (2013).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Lozupone, C. A., Hamady, M., Kelley, S. T. & Knight, R. Quantitative and qualitative β diversity measures lead to different insights into factors that structure microbial communities. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 73, 1576–1585 (2007).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Lay, C.-Y., Hamel, C. & St-Arnaud, M. Taxonomy and pathogenicity of Olpidium brassicae and its allied species. Fungal Biol. 122, 837–846 (2018).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Liu, L., Zhu, K., Wurzburger, N. & Zhang, J. Relationships between plant diversity and soil microbial diversity vary across taxonomic groups and spatial scales. Ecosphere 11, e02999 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Hartwright, L. M., Hunter, P. J. & Walsh, J. A. A comparison of Olpidium isolates from a range of host plants using internal transcribed spacer sequence analysis and host range studies. Fungal Biol. 114, 26–33 (2010).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Barel, J. M. et al. Winter cover crop legacy effects on litter decomposition act through litter quality and microbial community changes. J. Appl. Ecol. 56, 132–143 (2019).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Austin, E. E., Wickings, K., McDaniel, M. D., Robertson, G. P. & Grandy, A. S. Cover crop root contributions to soil carbon in a no-till corn bioenergy cropping system. GCB Bioenergy 9, 1252–1263 (2017).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Bai, Z., Liang, C., Bodé, S., Huygens, D. & Boeckx, P. Phospholipid 13C stable isotopic probing during decomposition of wheat residues. Appl. Soil Ecol. 98, 65–74 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Põlme, S. et al. FungalTraits: A user-friendly traits database of fungi and fungus-like stramenopiles. Fungal Divers. 105, 1–16 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pepe, A., Giovannetti, M. & Sbrana, C. Lifespan and functionality of mycorrhizal fungal mycelium are uncoupled from host plant lifespan. Sci. Rep. 8, 1–10 (2018).
Google Scholar 
Frey, S. D. Mycorrhizal fungi as mediators of soil organic matter dynamics. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 50, 237–259 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Saleem, M., Hu, J. & Jousset, A. More than the sum of its parts: Microbiome biodiversity as a driver of plant growth and soil health. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 50, 145–168 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wei, Z. et al. Initial soil microbiome composition and functioning predetermine future plant health. Sci. Adv. 5, 1–12 (2019).
Google Scholar 
Ozimek, E. & Hanaka, A. Mortierella species as the plant growth-promoting fungi present in the agricultural soils. Agriculture 11, 7 (2020).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Li, F. et al. Mortierella elongata’s roles in organic agriculture and crop growth promotion in a mineral soil. L. Degrad. Dev. 29, 1642–1651 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Sansinenea, E. Bacillus spp.: As plant growth-promoting bacteria. in Secondary Metabolites of Plant Growth Promoting Rhizomicroorganisms: Discovery and Applications 225–237 (Springer, 2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-5862-3_11.Palaniyandi, S. A., Yang, S. H., Zhang, L. & Suh, J.-W. Effects of actinobacteria on plant disease suppression and growth promotion. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 97, 9621–9636 (2013).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Jung, M.-Y. et al. Ammonia-oxidizing archaea possess a wide range of cellular ammonia affinities. ISME J. 16, 272–283 (2022).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Zhong, Y. et al. Microbial community assembly and metabolic function during wheat straw decomposition under different nitrogen fertilization treatments. Biol. Fertil. Soils 56, 697–710 (2020).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Liu, X. et al. Decomposing cover crops modify root-associated microbiome composition and disease tolerance of cash crop seedlings. Soil Biol. Biochem. 160, 108343 (2021).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Larkin, R. P., Griffin, T. S. & Honeycutt, C. W. Rotation and cover crop effects on soilborne potato diseases, tuber yield, and soil microbial communities. Plant Dis. 94, 1491–1502 (2010).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
van der Putten, W. H., Bradford, M. A., Brinkman, E. P., van de Voorde, T. F. J. & Veen, G. F. Where, when and how plant–soil feedback matters in a changing world. Funct. Ecol. 30, 1109–1121 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Menalled, U. D., Seipel, T. & Menalled, F. D. Farming system effects on biologically mediated plant–soil feedbacks. Renew. Agric. Food Syst. 36, 1–7 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Fierer, N. & Jackson, J. Assessment of soil microbial community structure by use of taxon-specific quantitative PCR assays. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 71, 4117 (2005).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Vainio, E. J. & Hantula, J. Direct analysis of wood-inhabiting fungi using denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis of amplified ribosomal DNA. Mycol. Res. 104, 927–936 (2000).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Caporaso, J. G. et al. Global patterns of 16S rRNA diversity at a depth of millions of sequences per sample. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 108, 4516–4522 (2011).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
White, T. J., Bruns, T., Lee, S. & Taylor, J. Amplification and direct sequencing of fungal ribosomal RNA genes for phylogenetics. In PCR Protocols: A Guide to Methods and Applications (eds Innis, M. A. et al.) 315–322 (Academic Press, 1990).

Google Scholar 
Bolyen, E. et al. Reproducible, interactive, scalable and extensible microbiome data science using QIIME 2. Nat. Biotechnol. 37, 852–857 (2019).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Callahan, B. J. et al. DADA2: High-resolution sample inference from Illumina amplicon data. Nat. Methods 13, 581–583 (2016).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Rivers, A. R., Weber, K. C., Gardner, T. G., Liu, S. & Armstrong, S. D. ITSxpress: Software to rapidly trim internally transcribed spacer sequences with quality scores for marker gene analysis. F1000Research 7, 1418 (2018).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Katoh, K., Misawa, K., Kuma, K. & Miyata, T. MAFFT: A novel method for rapid multiple sequence alignment based on fast Fourier transform. Nucleic Acids Res. 30, 3059–3066 (2002).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Price, M. N., Dehal, P. S. & Arkin, A. P. FastTree 2—Approximately maximum-likelihood trees for large alignments. PLoS ONE 5, e9490 (2010).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Bokulich, N. A. et al. Optimizing taxonomic classification of marker-gene amplicon sequences with QIIME 2’s q2-feature-classifier plugin. Microbiome 6, 90 (2018).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Quast, C. et al. The SILVA ribosomal RNA gene database project: Improved data processing and web-based tools. Nucleic Acids Res. 41, D590–D596 (2013).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Abarenkov, K. et al. UNITE QIIME release for Fungi. https://doi.org/10.15156/bio/786385 (2020).R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. (2020).Oksanen, J. et al. vegan: Community Ecology Package. (2020).Anderson, M. J., Gorley, R. N. & Clarke, K. R. PERMANOVA+ for PRIMER: Guide to Software and Statistical Methods. (PRIMER-E, 2008).Anderson, M. J. & Willis, T. J. Canonical analysis of principal coordinates: A useful method of constrained ordination for ecology. Ecology 84, 511–525 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
Cáceres, M. D. & Legendre, P. Associations between species and groups of sites: Indices and statistical inference. Ecology 90, 3566–3574 (2009).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Fernandes, A. D. et al. Unifying the analysis of high-throughput sequencing datasets: Characterizing RNA-seq, 16S rRNA gene sequencing and selective growth experiments by compositional data analysis. Microbiome 2, 15 (2014).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar  More

Harvey, P. H. & Pagel, M. D. The comparative method in evolutionary biology. Vol. 239 (Oxford University Press, 1991).Oyston, J. W., Hughes, M., Wagner, P. J., Gerber, S. & Wills, M. A. What limits the morphological disparity of clades? Interface Focus 5, 0042 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Jetz, W., Thomas, G. H., Joy, J. B., Hartmann, K. & Mooers, A. O. The global diversity of birds in space and time. Nature 491, 444–448 (2012).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Webb, C. O. Exploring the phylogenetic structure of ecological communities: an example for rain forest trees. Am. Naturalist 156, 145–155 (2000).Article 

Google Scholar 
Purvis, A., Gittleman, J. L. & Brooks, T. Phylogeny and conservation. (Cambridge University Press, 2005).Page, R. D. M. Parallel phylogenies: reconstructing the history of host-parasite assemblages. Cladistics 10, 155–173 (1994).Article 

Google Scholar 
Weaver, S. C. & Vasilakis, N. Molecular evolution of dengue viruses: contributions of phylogenetics to understanding the history and epidemiology of the preeminent arboviral disease. Infect., Genet. Evolution 9, 523–540 (2009).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Tassy, P. Trees before and after Darwin. J. Zool. Syst. Evolut. Res. 49, 89–101 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Heather, J. M. & Chain, B. The sequence of sequencers: The history of sequencing DNA. Genomics 107, 1–8 (2016).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Pyron, R. A. Post-molecular systematics and the future of phylogenetics. Trends Ecol. Evolution 30, 384–389 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Sansom, R. S. & Wills, M. A. Differences between hard and soft phylogenetic data. Proc. R. Soc. B: Biol. Sci. 284, 20172150 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Scotland, R. W., Olmstead, R. G. & Bennett, J. R. Phylogeny reconstruction: the role of morphology. Syst. Biol. 52, 539–548 (2003).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Regier, J. C. et al. Arthropod relationships revealed by phylogenomic analysis of nuclear protein-coding sequences. Nature 463, 1079–1083 (2010).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Callender-Crowe, L. M. & Sansom, R. S. Osteological characters of birds and reptiles are more congruent with molecular phylogenies than soft characters are. Zool. J. Linn. Soc. 194, 1–13 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wahlberg, N. et al. Synergistic effects of combining morphological and molecular data in resolving the phylogeny of butterflies and skippers. Proc. R. Soc. B: Biol. Sci. 272, 1577–1586 (2005).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
He, L. et al. A molecular phylogeny of selligueoid ferns (Polypodiaceae): Implications for a natural delimitation despite homoplasy and rapid radiation. Taxon 67, 237–249 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Fernández, R., Edgecombe, G. D. & Giribet, G. Phylogenomics illuminates the backbone of the Myriapoda Tree of Life and reconciles morphological and molecular phylogenies. Sci. Rep. 8, 1–7 (2018).
Google Scholar 
Eme, L., Spang, A., Lombard, J., Stairs, C. W. & Ettema, T. J. G. Archaea and the origin of eukaryotes. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 15, 711–723 (2017).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Asher, R. J., Bennett, N. & Lehmann, T. The new framework for understanding placental mammal evolution. BioEssays 31, 853–864 (2009).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Shoshani, J. & McKenna, M. C. Higher taxonomic relationships among extant mammals based on morphology, with selected comparisons of results from molecular data. Mol. Phylogenetics Evolution 9, 572–584 (1998).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Beck, R. M. D. & Baillie, C. Improvements in the fossil record may largely resolve current conflicts between morphological and molecular estimates of mammal phylogeny. Proc. R. Soc. B: Biol. Sci. 285, 20181632 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Zou, Z. T. & Zhang, J. Z. Morphological and molecular convergences in mammalian phylogenetics. Nat. Commun. 7, 1–9 (2016).
Google Scholar 
Hillis, D. M. Molecular versus morphological approaches to systematics. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 18, 23–42 (1987).Article 

Google Scholar 
Thompson, N. Alfred Russell Wallace Contributions to the theory of Natural Selection, 1870, and Charles Darwin and Alfred Wallace, ‘On the Tendency of Species to form Varieties’ (Papers presented to the Linnean Society 30th June 1858). (Routledge, 2004).Croizat, L. Panbiogeography; or an introductory synthesis of zoogeography, phytogeography, and geology, with notes on evolution, systematics, ecology, anthropology, etc., Vol. 1, 2a & 2b (Published by the author, Caracas., 1958).Means, J. C. & Marek, P. E. Is geography an accurate predictor of evolutionary history in the millipede family Xystodesmidae? PeerJ 5, e3854 (2017).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Wills, M. A., Barrett, P. M. & Heathcote, J. F. The modified gap excess ratio (GER*) and the stratigraphic congruence of dinosaur phylogenies. Syst. Biol. 57, 891–904 (2008).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Fisher, D. C. Stratocladistics: integrating temporal data and character data in phylogenetic inference. Annu. Rev. Ecol., Evolution Syst. 39, 365–385 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lazarus, D. B. & Prothero, D. R. The role of stratigraphic and morphologic data in phylogeny. J. Paleontol. 58, 163–172 (1984).
Google Scholar 
Camerini, J. R. Evolution, biogeography, and maps: an early history of Wallace’s Line. Isis 84, 700–727 (1993).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Upchurch, P., Hunn, C. A. & Norman, D. B. An analysis of dinosaurian biogeography: evidence for the existence of vicariance and dispersal patterns caused by geological events. Proc. R. Soc. B: Biol. Sci. 269, 613–621 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ferreira, G. S., Bronzati, M., Langer, M. C. & Sterli, J. Phylogeny, biogeography and diversification patterns of side-necked turtles (Testudines: Pleurodira). R. Soc. Open Sci. 5, 171773 (2018).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Ronquist, F. & Sanmartín, I. Phylogenetic methods in biogeography. Annu. Rev. Ecol., Evolution, Syst. 42, 441–464 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
IUCN. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2019-2., https://www.iucnredlist.org (2019).GBIF.org. GBIF Home Page, https://www.gbif.org/ (2019).Uetz, P., Freed, P., Aguilar, R. & Hošek, J. The reptile database., http://www.reptiledatabase.org (2019).Archie, J. W. Homoplasy excess ratios: new indices for measuring levels of homoplasy in phylogenetic systematics and a critique of the consistency index. Syst. Zool. 38, 253–269 (1989).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wilkinson, M. On phylogenetic relationships within Dendrotriton (Amphibia: Caudata: Plethodontidae) is there sufficient evidence? Herpetological J. 7, 55–65 (1997).
Google Scholar 
O’Connor, A. & Wills, M. A. Measuring stratigraphic congruence across trees, higher taxa, and time. Syst. Biol. 65, 792–811 (2016).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Colless, D. H. Review of phylogenetics: the theory and practice of phylogenetic systematics. Syst. Zool. 31, 100–104 (1982).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lartillot, N. & Philippe, H. Improvement of molecular phylogenetic inference and the phylogeny of Bilateria. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B: Biol. Sci. 363, 1463–1472 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Sansom, R. S., Choate, P. G., Keating, J. N. & Randle, E. Parsimony, not Bayesian analysis, recovers more stratigraphically congruent phylogenetic trees. Biol. Lett. 14, 20180263 (2018).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Rosa, B. B., Melo, G. A. & Barbeitos, M. S. Homoplasy-based partitioning outperforms alternatives in Bayesian analysis of discrete morphological data. Syst. Biol. 68, 657–671 (2019).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Lucena, D. A. & Almeida, E. A. Morphology and Bayesian tip-dating recover deep Cretaceous-age divergences among major chrysidid lineages (Hymenoptera: Chrysididae). Zool. J. Linn. Soc. 194, 36–79 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
O’Reilly, J. E. et al. Bayesian methods outperform parsimony but at the expense of precision in the estimation of phylogeny from discrete morphological data. Biol. Lett. 12, 20160081 (2016).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Smith, M. R. Bayesian and parsimony approaches reconstruct informative trees from simulated morphological datasets. Biol. Lett. 15, 20180632 (2019).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Wiens, J. The role of morphological data in phylogeny reconstruction. Syst. Biol. 53, 653–661 (2004).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
O’Leary, M. A. & Kaufman, S. G. MorphoBank 3.0: Web application for morphological phylogenetics and taxonomy., http://www.morphobank.org (2012).de Queiroz, A. & Gatesy, J. The supermatrix approach to systematics. Trends Ecol. Evolution 22, 34–41 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wilkinson, M. A comparison of two methods of character construction. Cladistics 11, 297–308 (1995).Article 

Google Scholar 
Brazeau, M. D. Problematic character coding methods in morphology and their effects. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 104, 489–498 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Drummond, A. J., Ho, S. Y. W., Phillips, M. J. & Rambaut, A. Relaxed phylogenetics and dating with confidence. PLoS Biol. 4, e88 (2006).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
O’Reilly, J. E., Puttick, M. N., Pisani, D. & Donoghue, P. C. Probabilistic methods surpass parsimony when assessing clade support in phylogenetic analyses of discrete morphological data. Palaeontology 61, 105–118 (2018).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Keating, J. N., Sansom, R. S., Sutton, M. D., Knight, C. G. & Garwood, R. J. Morphological phylogenetics evaluated using novel evolutionary simulations. Syst. Biol. 69, 897–912 (2020).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Makarenkov, V. et al. Weighted bootstrapping: a correction method for assessing the robustness of phylogenetic trees. BMC Evolut. Biol. 10, 1–16 (2010).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Stayton, C. T. The definition, recognition, and interpretation of convergent evolution, and two new measures for quantifying and assessing the significance of convergence. Evolution 69, 2140–2153 (2015).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Sattler, R. Homology – a continuing challenge. Syst. Bot. 9, 382–394 (1984).Article 

Google Scholar 
Jenner, R. A. & Schram, F. R. The grand game of metazoan phylogeny: rules and strategies. Biol. Rev. 74, 121–142 (1999).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pisani, D. & Wilkinson, M. Matrix representation with parsimony, taxonomic congruence, and total evidence. Syst. Biol. 51, 151–155 (2002).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Arcila, D. et al. Testing the utility of alternative metrics of branch support to address the ancient evolutionary radiation of tunas, stromateoids, and allies (Teleostei: Pelagiaria). Syst. Biol. 70, 1123–1144 (2021).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Felsenstein, J. Phylogenies and the comparative method. Am. Naturalist 125, 1–15 (1985).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bremer, K. Branch support and tree stability. Cladistics 10, 295–304 (1994).Article 

Google Scholar 
Johnson, W. E. et al. The late Miocene radiation of modern Felidae: a genetic assessment. Science 311, 73–77 (2006).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Van der Made, J. Biogeography and climatic change as a context to human dispersal out of Africa and within Eurasia. Quat. Sci. Rev. 30, 1353–1367 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
May, F., Rosenbaum, B., Schurr, F. M. & Chase, J. M. The geometry of habitat fragmentation: Effects of species distribution patterns on extinction risk due to habitat conversion. Ecol. Evolution 9, 2775–2790 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Swofford, D. L. et al. Bias in phylogenetic estimation and its relevance to the choice between parsimony and likelihood methods. Syst. Biol. 50, 525–539 (2001).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Jaeger, J. J. & Martin, M. African marsupials – vicariance or dispersion? Nature 312, 379–379 (1984).Article 

Google Scholar 
Smith, B. T. et al. The drivers of tropical speciation. Nature 515, 406–409 (2014).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Simkanin, C. et al. Exploring potential establishment of marine rafting species after transoceanic long-distance dispersal. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 28, 588–600 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Raxworthy, C. J., Forstner, M. R. J. & Nussbaum, R. A. Chameleon radiation by oceanic dispersal. Nature 415, 784–787 (2002).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Stehli, F. G. & Webb, S. D. The great American biotic interchange., Vol. 4 (Springer Science & Business Media, 2013).Ronquist, F. Dispersal-vicariance analysis: A new approach to the quantification of historical biogeography. Syst. Biol. 46, 195–203 (1997).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ricklefs, R. E. & Bermingham, E. The concept of the taxon cycle in biogeography. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 11, 353–361 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ma, H. An analysis of the equilibrium of migration models for biogeography-based optimization. Inf. Sci. 180, 3444–3464 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Yiming, L., Niemelä, J. & Dianmo, L. Nested distribution of amphibians in the Zhoushan archipelago, China: can selective extinction cause nested subsets of species? Oecologia 113, 557–564 (1998).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Crisci, J. V., Katinas, L. & Posadas, P. Historical Biogeography: An Introduction. (Harvard University Press, 2003).Chen, R. et al. Adaptive innovation of green plants by horizontal gene transfer. Biotechnol. Adv. 46, 107671 (2021).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Schönknecht, G., Weber, A. P. & Lercher, M. J. Horizontal gene acquisitions by eukaryotes as drivers of adaptive evolution. BioEssays 36, 9–20 (2014).PubMed 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Smith, A. B. Echinoderm phylogeny: morphology and molecules approach accord. Trends Ecol. Evolution 7, 224–229 (1992).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Bateman, R. M., Hilton, J. & Rudall, P. J. Morphological and molecular phylogenetic context of the angiosperms: contrasting the ‘top-down’ and ‘bottom-up’ approaches used to infer the likely characteristics of the first flowers. J. Exp. Bot. 57, 3471–3503 (2006).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Morris, J. L. et al. The timescale of early land plant evolution. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. 115, E2274–E2283 (2018).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Richter, S. The Tetraconata concept: hexapod-crustacean relationships and the phylogeny of Crustacea. Org. Diversity Evolution 2, 217–237 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
Dunn, C. W. et al. Broad phylogenomic sampling improves resolution of the animal tree of life. Nature 452, 745–749 (2008).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Caravas, J. & Friedrich, M. Of mites and millipedes: recent progress in resolving the base of the arthropod tree. BioEssays 32, 488–495 (2010).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Howard, R. J. et al. The Ediacaran origin of Ecdysozoa: integrating fossil and phylogenomic data. J. Geol. Soc. https://doi.org/10.1144/jgs2021-107 (2022).Newman, M. E. J. A model of mass extinction. J. Theor. Biol. 189, 235–252 (1997).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Cobbett, A., Wilkinson, M. & Wills, M. A. Fossils impact as hard as living taxa in parsimony analyses of morphology. Syst. Biol. 56, 753–766 (2007).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Ruta, M., Krieger, J., Angielczyk, K. & Wills, M. A. The evolution of the tetrapod humerus: morphometrics, disparity, and evolutionary rates. Earth Environ. Sci. Trans. R. Soc. Edinb. 109, 351–369 (2018).
Google Scholar 
Puttick, M. N., Thomas, G. H. & Benton, M. J. High rates of evolution preceded the origins of birds. Evolution 68, 1497–1510 (2014).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Sansom, R. S. & Wills, M. A. Fossilization causes organisms to appear erroneously primitive by distorting evolutionary trees. Sci. Rep. 3, 1–5 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Brinkworth, A., Sansom, R. & Wills, M. A. Phylogenetic incongruence and homoplasy in the appendages and bodies of arthropods: why broad character sampling is best. Zool. J. Linn. Soc. 187, 100–116 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Brown, J. W. & Smith, S. A. The past sure is tense: on interpreting phylogenetic divergence time estimates. Syst. Biol. 67, 340–353 (2018).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Barba-Montoya, J., Dos Reis, M. & Yang, Z. H. Comparison of different strategies for using fossil calibrations to generate the time prior in Bayesian molecular clock dating. Mol. Phylogenetics Evolution 114, 386–400 (2017).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Sanderson, M. J. & Donoghue, M. J. Patterns of variation in levels of homoplasy. Evolution 43, 1781–1795 (1989).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Alroy, J. Fossilworks: Gateway to the Paleobiology Database, http://fossilworks.org (2019).Benton, M. J. The Fossil Record 2. (Chapman & Hall, 1993).Cohen, K. M., Harper, D. A. T. & Gibbard, P. L. ICS International Chronostratigraphic Chart 2021/02, http://www.stratigraphy.org/ (2021).Gradstein, F. & Ogg, J. Geologic time scale 2004–why, how, and where next! Lethaia 37, 175–181 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
Rohde, R. A. The GeoWhen Database, (2005).O’Leary, M. A. et al. The placental mammal ancestor and the post–K-Pg radiation of placentals. Science 339, 662–667 (2013).PubMed 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Kluge, A. G. A concern for evidence and a phylogenetic hypothesis of relationships among Epicrates (Boidae, Serpentes). Syst. Biol. 38, 7–25 (1989).Article 

Google Scholar 
Tolson, P. J. Phylogenetics of the boid snake genus Epicrates and Caribbean vicariance theory. Occasional Pap. Mus. Zool., Univ. Mich. 715, 1–68 (1987).
Google Scholar 
Clopper, C. J. & Pearson, E. S. The use of confidence or fiducial limits illustrated in the case of the binomial. Biometrika 26, 404–413 (1934).Article 

Google Scholar  More

Costanza, R. et al. Nature 387, 253–260 (1997).Article 

Google Scholar 
Toman, M. Ecol. Econom. 25, 57–60 (1998).Article 

Google Scholar 
Barbier, E. B., Burgess, J. C. & Folke, C. (eds) Paradise Lost? The Ecological Economics of Biodiversity (Routledge, 1994).
Google Scholar 
Daily, G. C. (ed.) Nature’s Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems (Island, 1997).
Google Scholar 
Watson, R. T. et al. (eds) Global Biodiversity Assessment: Summary for Policy-Makers (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1995).
Google Scholar 
Reid, W. V. et al. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Synthesis (A Report of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment) (Island, 2005).
Google Scholar 
Chichilnisky, G. & Heal, G. Nature 391, 629–630 (1998).Article 

Google Scholar 
Umaña Quesada, A. in Green Growth That Works: Natural Capital Policy and Finance Mechanisms from Around the World (eds Mandle, L. et al.) Ch. 13, 195–212 (Island, 2019).
Google Scholar 
Ouyang, Z. et al. in Green Growth That Works: Natural Capital Policy and Finance Mechanisms from Around the World (eds Mandle, L. et al.) Ch. 12, 177–194 (Island, 2019).
Google Scholar 
Salzman, J., Bennett, G., Carroll, N., Goldstein, A. & Jenkins, M. Nature Sustain. 1, 136–144 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. The Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services: Summary for Policymakers (eds Díaz, S. et al.) (IPBES, 2019).
Google Scholar 
Chaplin-Kramer, R. et al. Science 366, 255–258 (2019).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Hamel, P. et al. npj Nature Urban Sustain. 1, 25 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Mandle, L., Ouyang, Z., Salzman, J. & Daily, G. C. (eds) Green Growth That Works: Natural Capital Policy and Finance Mechanisms from Around the World (Island, 2019).
Google Scholar 
Dasgupta, P. The Economics of Biodiversity: The Dasgupta Review. Abridged Version (HM Treasury, 2021).
Google Scholar 
Arkema, K. K. et al. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, 7390–7395 (2015).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Ouyang, Z. et al. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117, 14593–14601 (2020).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar  More

Houborg, R., Fisher, J. B. & Skidmore, A. K. Advances in remote sensing of vegetation function and traits. Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinf. 43, 1–6 (2015).
Google Scholar 
Bannari, A., Morin, D., Bonn, F. & Huete, A. A review of vegetation indices. Remote Sens. Rev. 13, 95–120 (1995).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gao, X., Huete, A. R., Ni, W. & Miura, T. Optical–biophysical relationships of vegetation spectra without background contamination. Remote Sens. Environ. 74, 609–620 (2000).Article 

Google Scholar 
Huete, A. R. A soil-adjusted vegetation index (SAVI). Remote Sens. Environ. 25, 295–309 (1988).Article 

Google Scholar 
Badgley, G., Field, C. B. & Berry, J. A. Canopy near-infrared reflectance and terrestrial photosynthesis. Sci. Adv. 3, e1602244 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gamon, J. A. et al. A remotely sensed pigment index reveals photosynthetic phenology in evergreen conifers. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, 13087–13092 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Joiner, J. et al. Estimation of terrestrial global gross primary production (GPP) with satellite data-driven models and eddy covariance flux data. Remote Sens. 10, 1346 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Piao, S. et al. Characteristics, drivers and feedbacks of global greening. Nat. Rev. Earth Environ. 1, 14–27 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Tian, F. et al. Evaluating temporal consistency of long-term global NDVI datasets for trend analysis. Remote Sens. Environ. 163, 326–340 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Fan, X. & Liu, Y. A global study of NDVI difference among moderate-resolution satellite sensors. ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote Sens. 121, 177–191 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
AghaKouchak, A. et al. Remote sensing of drought: progress, challenges and opportunities. Rev. Geophys. 53, 452–480 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Anyamba, A. & Tucker, in Remote Sensing of Drought: Innovative Monitoring Approaches Ch. 2 (eds Wardlow, B. D., Anderson, M. C. & Verdin, J. P.) (Taylor & Francis, 2012).Veraverbeke, S. et al. Hyperspectral remote sensing of fire: state-of-the-art and future perspectives. Remote Sens. Environ. 216, 105–121 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Tucker, C. J. Red and photographic infrared linear combinations for monitoring vegetation. Remote Sens. Environ. 8, 127–150 (1979).Article 

Google Scholar 
Rouse, J. W., Haas, R. H., Schell, J. A. & Deering, D. W. Monitoring vegetation systems in the Great Plains with ERTS. NASA Spec. Publ. 351, 309 (1974).
Google Scholar 
Rouse, J. W., Haas, R. H., Schell, J. A., Deering, D. W. & Harlan, J. C. Monitoring the vernal advancement and retrogradation (green wave effect) of natural vegetation. NASA/GSFCT Type III Final Report, 371 (NASA, 1974).Gutman, G., Skakun, S. & Gitelson, A. Revisiting the use of red and near-infrared reflectances in vegetation studies and numerical climate models. Sci. Remote Sens. 4, 100025 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Jackson, R. D. & Huete, A. R. Interpreting vegetation indices. Prev. Vet. Med. 11, 185–200 (1991).Article 

Google Scholar 
Richardson, A. J. & Wiegand, C. Distinguishing vegetation from soil background information. Photogramm. Eng. Remote Sens. 43, 1541–1552 (1977).
Google Scholar 
Baret, F., Guyot, G. & Major, D. in 12th Canadian Symposium on Remote Sensing Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium 1355–1358 (IEEE, 1989).Qi, J., Chehbouni, A., Huete, A. R., Kerr, Y. H. & Sorooshian, S. A modified soil adjusted vegetation index. Remote Sens. Environ. 48, 119–126 (1994).Article 

Google Scholar 
Chen, J. M. Evaluation of vegetation indices and a modified simple ratio for boreal applications. Can. J. Remote Sens. 22, 229–242 (1996).Article 

Google Scholar 
Brown, L., Chen, J. M., Leblanc, S. G. & Cihlar, J. A shortwave infrared modification to the simple ratio for LAI retrieval in boreal forests: an image and model analysis. Remote Sens. Environ. 71, 16–25 (2000).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pinty, B. & Verstraete, M. GEMI: a non-linear index to monitor global vegetation from satellites. Vegetatio 101, 15–20 (1992).Article 

Google Scholar 
Huete, A. et al. Overview of the radiometric and biophysical performance of the MODIS vegetation indices. Remote Sens. Environ. 83, 195–213 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kaufman, Y. J. & Tanre, D. Atmospherically resistant vegetation index (ARVI) for EOS-MODIS. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. 30, 261–270 (1992).Article 

Google Scholar 
Jiang, Z., Huete, A. R., Didan, K. & Miura, T. Development of a two-band enhanced vegetation index without a blue band. Remote Sens. Environ. 112, 3833–3845 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Jin, H. & Eklundh, L. A physically based vegetation index for improved monitoring of plant phenology. Remote Sens. Environ. 152, 512–525 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Yang, P., van der Tol, C., Campbell, P. K. & Middleton, E. M. Fluorescence Correction Vegetation Index (FCVI): A physically based reflectance index to separate physiological and non-physiological information in far-red sun-induced chlorophyll fluorescence. Remote Sens. Environ. 240, 111676 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Badgley, G., Anderegg, L. D., Berry, J. A. & Field, C. B. Terrestrial gross primary production: Using NIRV to scale from site to globe. Glob. Change Biol. 25, 3731–3740 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Camps-Valls, G. et al. A unified vegetation index for quantifying the terrestrial biosphere. Sci. Adv. 7, eabc7447 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Roberts, D. A., Roth, K. L. & Perroy, R. L. in Hyperspectral Remote Sensing of Vegetation Ch. 14 (eds Thenkabail, P. S., Lyon, J. G. & Huete, A.) (CRC, 2016).Gitelson, A. A., Vina, A., Ciganda, V., Rundquist, D. C. & Arkebauer, T. J. Remote estimation of canopy chlorophyll content in crops. Geophys. Res. Lett. 32, L08403 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gitelson, A. & Merzlyak, M. N. Spectral reflectance changes associated with autumn senescence of Aesculus hippocastanum L. and Acer platanoides L. leaves. Spectral features and relation to chlorophyll estimation. J. Plant Physiol. 143, 286–292 (1994).Article 

Google Scholar 
Dash, J. & Curran, P. The MERIS terrestrial chlorophyll index. Int. J. Remote Sens. 25, 5403–5413 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
Penuelas, J., Baret, F. & Filella, I. Semi-empirical indices to assess carotenoids/chlorophyll a ratio from leaf spectral reflectance. Photosynthetica 31, 221–230 (1995).
Google Scholar 
Peñuelas, J., Gamon, J., Fredeen, A., Merino, J. & Field, C. Reflectance indices associated with physiological changes in nitrogen- and water-limited sunflower leaves. Remote Sens. Environ. 48, 135–146 (1994).Article 

Google Scholar 
Merzlyak, M. N., Gitelson, A. A., Chivkunova, O. B. & Rakitin, V. Y. Non-destructive optical detection of pigment changes during leaf senescence and fruit ripening. Physiol. Plant. 106, 135–141 (1999).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gitelson, A. A., Merzlyak, M. N. & Chivkunova, O. B. Optical properties and nondestructive estimation of anthocyanin content in plant leaves. Photochem. Photobiol. 74, 38–45 (2001).Article 

Google Scholar 
van den Berg, A. K. & Perkins, T. D. Nondestructive estimation of anthocyanin content in autumn sugar maple leaves. HortScience 40, 685–686 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gamon, J. & Surfus, J. Assessing leaf pigment content and activity with a reflectometer. New Phytol. 143, 105–117 (1999).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gao, B.-C. NDWI — a normalized difference water index for remote sensing of vegetation liquid water from space. Remote Sens. Environ. 58, 257–266 (1996).Article 

Google Scholar 
Xiao, X., Boles, S., Liu, J., Zhuang, D. & Liu, M. Characterization of forest types in Northeastern China, using multi-temporal SPOT-4 VEGETATION sensor data. Remote Sens. Environ. 82, 335–348 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
Xiao, X. et al. Satellite-based modeling of gross primary production in an evergreen needleleaf forest. Remote Sens. Environ. 89, 519–534 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
Yilmaz, M. T., Hunt, E. R. Jr & Jackson, T. J. Remote sensing of vegetation water content from equivalent water thickness using satellite imagery. Remote Sens. Environ. 112, 2514–2522 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Cheng, Y.-B., Ustin, S. L., Riaño, D. & Vanderbilt, V. C. Water content estimation from hyperspectral images and MODIS indexes in Southeastern Arizona. Remote Sens. Environ. 112, 363–374 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Serrano, L., Penuelas, J. & Ustin, S. L. Remote sensing of nitrogen and lignin in Mediterranean vegetation from AVIRIS data: decomposing biochemical from structural signals. Remote Sens. Environ. 81, 355–364 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
Filella, I. et al. PRI assessment of long-term changes in carotenoids/chlorophyll ratio and short-term changes in de-epoxidation state of the xanthophyll cycle. Int. J. Remote Sens. 30, 4443–4455 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gamon, J., Penuelas, J. & Field, C. A narrow-waveband spectral index that tracks diurnal changes in photosynthetic efficiency. Remote Sens. Environ. 41, 35–44 (1992).Article 

Google Scholar 
Cheng, R. et al. Decomposing reflectance spectra to track gross primary production in a subalpine evergreen forest. Biogeosciences 17, 4523–4544 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Seyednasrollah, B. et al. Seasonal variation in the canopy color of temperate evergreen conifer forests. New Phytol. 229, 2586–2600 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Merton, R. in Proceedings of the Seventh Annual JPL Airborne Earth Science Workshop 12–16 (NASA, 2004).Naidu, R. A., Perry, E. M., Pierce, F. J. & Mekuria, T. The potential of spectral reflectance technique for the detection of Grapevine leafroll-associated virus-3 in two red-berried wine grape cultivars. Comput. Electron. Agric. 66, 38–45 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Chen, Y. et al. Generation and evaluation of LAI and FPAR products from Himawari-8 Advanced Himawari imager (AHI) data. Remote Sens. 11, 1517 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Zhu, Z. et al. Global data sets of vegetation leaf area index (LAI)3g and fraction of photosynthetically active radiation (FPAR)3g derived from global inventory modeling and mapping studies (GIMMS) normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI3g) for the period 1981 to 2011. Remote Sens. 5, 927–948 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Liu, Y., Liu, R. & Chen, J. M. Retrospective retrieval of long-term consistent global leaf area index (1981–2011) from combined AVHRR and MODIS data. J. Geophys. Res. 117, G04003 (2012).
Google Scholar 
Croft, H. et al. The global distribution of leaf chlorophyll content. Remote Sens. Environ. 236, 111479 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bayat, B. et al. Toward operational validation systems for global satellite-based terrestrial essential climate variables. Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinf. 95, 102240 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Cui, Y., Song, L. & Fan, W. Generation of spatio-temporally continuous evapotranspiration and its components by coupling a two-source energy balance model and a deep neural network over the Heihe River Basin. J. Hydrol. 597, 126176 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ali, I., Greifeneder, F., Stamenkovic, J., Neumann, M. & Notarnicola, C. Review of machine learning approaches for biomass and soil moisture retrievals from remote sensing data. Remote Sens. 7, 16398–16421 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gitelson, A. A. et al. Remote estimation of leaf area index and green leaf biomass in maize canopies. Geophys. Res. Lett. 30, 1248 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
Huang, M. et al. Air temperature optima of vegetation productivity across global biomes. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 3, 772–779 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wang, S. et al. Recent global decline of CO2 fertilization effects on vegetation photosynthesis. Science 370, 1295–1300 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Morton, D. C. et al. Amazon forests maintain consistent canopy structure and greenness during the dry season. Nature 506, 221–224 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Jiang, Z. et al. Analysis of NDVI and scaled difference vegetation index retrievals of vegetation fraction. Remote Sens. Environ. 101, 366–378 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
Haboudane, D., Miller, J. R., Pattey, E., Zarco-Tejada, P. J. & Strachan, I. B. Hyperspectral vegetation indices and novel algorithms for predicting green LAI of crop canopies: modeling and validation in the context of precision agriculture. Remote Sens. Environ. 90, 337–352 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wu, C., Wang, L., Niu, Z., Gao, S. & Wu, M. Nondestructive estimation of canopy chlorophyll content using Hyperion and Landsat/TM images. Int. J. Remote Sens. 31, 2159–2167 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wang, R. & Gamon, J. A. Remote sensing of terrestrial plant biodiversity. Remote Sens. Environ. 231, 111218 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ustin, S. L. & Gamon, J. A. Remote sensing of plant functional types. New Phytol. 186, 795–816 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hilker, T. et al. Vegetation dynamics and rainfall sensitivity of the Amazon. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 16041–16046 (2014).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).Article 

Google Scholar 
Weber, M. et al. Exploring the use of DSCOVR/EPIC satellite observations to monitor vegetation phenology. Remote Sens. 12, 2384 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ganguly, S., Friedl, M. A., Tan, B., Zhang, X. & Verma, M. Land surface phenology from MODIS: characterization of the Collection 5 global land cover dynamics product. Remote Sens. Environ. 114, 1805–1816 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gray, J., Sulla-Menashe, D. & Friedl, M. A. User Guide to Collection 6 MODIS Land Cover Dynamics Product (MCD12Q2) (NASA, 2019).Wang, S., Zhang, Y., Ju, W., Qiu, B. & Zhang, Z. Tracking the seasonal and inter-annual variations of global gross primary production during last four decades using satellite near-infrared reflectance data. Sci. Total Environ. 755, 142569 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Tian, F. et al. Calibrating vegetation phenology from Sentinel-2 using eddy covariance, PhenoCam, and PEP725 networks across Europe. Remote Sens. Environ. 260, 112456 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Yin, G., Verger, A., Filella, I., Descals, A. & Peñuelas, J. Divergent estimates of forest photosynthetic phenology using structural and physiological vegetation indices. Geophys. Res. Lett. 47, e2020GL089167 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Qin, Y. et al. Carbon loss from forest degradation exceeds that from deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon. Nat. Clim. Change 11, 442–448 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Samanta, A. et al. Amazon forests did not green-up during the 2005 drought. Geophys. Res. Lett. 37, L05401 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Shi, Y., Huang, W., Luo, J., Huang, L. & Zhou, X. Detection and discrimination of pests and diseases in winter wheat based on spectral indices and kernel discriminant analysis. Comput. Electron. Agric. 141, 171–180 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Zhang, Z., Liu, M., Liu, X. & Zhou, G. A new vegetation index based on multitemporal Sentinel-2 images for discriminating heavy metal stress levels in rice. Sensors 18, 2172 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Yengoh, G. T., Dent, D., Olsson, L., Tengberg, A. E. & Tucker III, C. J. Use of the Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) to Assess Land Degradation at Multiple Scales: Current Status, Future Trends, and Practical Considerations (Springer, 2015).Potter, C. S. et al. Terrestrial ecosystem production: a process model based on global satellite and surface data. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 7, 811–841 (1993).Article 

Google Scholar 
Running, S. W. et al. A continuous satellite-derived measure of global terrestrial primary production. Bioscience 54, 547–560 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
Yuan, W. et al. Deriving a light use efficiency model from eddy covariance flux data for predicting daily gross primary production across biomes. Agric. For. Meteorol. 143, 189–207 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
Chen, M. et al. Quantification of terrestrial ecosystem carbon dynamics in the conterminous United States combining a process-based biogeochemical model and MODIS and AmeriFlux data. Biogeosciences 8, 2665–2688 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Xiao, J. et al. A continuous measure of gross primary production for the conterminous United States derived from MODIS and AmeriFlux data. Remote Sens. Environ. 114, 576–591 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Jiang, C., Guan, K., Wu, G., Peng, B. & Wang, S. A daily, 250 m, and real-time gross primary productivity product (2000–present) covering the contiguous United States. Earth Syst. Sci. Data Discuss. 2020, 1–28 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Schubert, P. et al. Modeling GPP in the Nordic forest landscape with MODIS time series data — comparison with the MODIS GPP product. Remote Sens. Environ. 126, 136–147 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Zeng, Y. et al. A practical approach for estimating the escape ratio of near-infrared solar-induced chlorophyll fluorescence. Remote Sens. Environ. 232, 111209 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Baldocchi, D. D. et al. Outgoing near infrared radiation from vegetation scales with canopy photosynthesis across a spectrum of function, structure, physiological capacity and weather. J. Geophys. Res. 125, e2019JG005534 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Dechant, B. et al. Canopy structure explains the relationship between photosynthesis and sun-induced chlorophyll fluorescence in crops. Remote Sens. Environ. 241, 111733 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Rahman, A. F., Gamon, J. A., Fuentes, D. A., Roberts, D. A. & Prentiss, D. Modeling spatially distributed ecosystem flux of boreal forest using hyperspectral indices from AVIRIS imagery. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 106, 33579–33591 (2001).Article 

Google Scholar 
Zhu, Z. et al. Comment on “Recent global decline of CO2 fertilization effects on vegetation photosynthesis”. Science 373, eabg5673 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Doughty, R. et al. Small anomalies in dry-season greenness and chlorophyll fluorescence for Amazon moist tropical forests during El Niño and La Niña. Remote Sens. Environ. 253, 112196 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Huang, N. et al. Spatial and temporal variations in global soil respiration and their relationships with climate and land cover. Sci. Adv. 6, eabb8508 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Huang, N., He, J.-S. & Niu, Z. Estimating the spatial pattern of soil respiration in Tibetan alpine grasslands using Landsat TM images and MODIS data. Ecol. Indic. 26, 117–125 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Neale, C. M., Gonzalez-Dugo, M. P., Serrano-Perez, A., Campos, I. & Mateos, L. Cotton canopy reflectance under variable solar zenith angles: implications of use in evapotranspiration models. Hydrol. Process. 35, e14162 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Chen, J. M. & Liu, J. Evolution of evapotranspiration models using thermal and shortwave remote sensing data. Remote Sens. Environ. 237, 111594 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Glenn, E. P., Huete, A. R., Nagler, P. L. & Nelson, S. G. Relationship between remotely-sensed vegetation indices, canopy attributes and plant physiological processes: what vegetation indices can and cannot tell us about the landscape. Sensors 8, 2136–2160 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Cui, Y., Jia, L. & Fan, W. Estimation of actual evapotranspiration and its components in an irrigated area by integrating the Shuttleworth-Wallace and surface temperature-vegetation index schemes using the particle swarm optimization algorithm. Agric. For. Meteorol. 307, 108488 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Glenn, E. P., Neale, C. M., Hunsaker, D. J. & Nagler, P. L. Vegetation index-based crop coefficients to estimate evapotranspiration by remote sensing in agricultural and natural ecosystems. Hydrol. Process. 25, 4050–4062 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
French, A. N. et al. Satellite-based NDVI crop coefficients and evapotranspiration with eddy covariance validation for multiple durum wheat fields in the US Southwest. Agric. Water Manag. 239, 106266 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lotsch, A., Friedl, M. A., Anderson, B. T. & Tucker, C. J. Coupled vegetation-precipitation variability observed from satellite and climate records. Geophys. Res. Lett. 30, 1774 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
Nezlin, N. P., Kostianoy, A. G. & Li, B.-L. Inter-annual variability and interaction of remote-sensed vegetation index and atmospheric precipitation in the Aral Sea region. J. Arid Environ. 62, 677–700 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
Notaro, M., Liu, Z. & Williams, J. W. Observed vegetation–climate feedbacks in the United States. J. Clim. 19, 763–786 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
Fensholt, R. & Proud, S. R. Evaluation of earth observation based global long term vegetation trends — Comparing GIMMS and MODIS global NDVI time series. Remote Sens. Environ. 119, 131–147 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Trishchenko, A. P., Cihlar, J. & Li, Z. Effects of spectral response function on surface reflectance and NDVI measured with moderate resolution satellite sensors. Remote Sens. Environ. 81, 1–18 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ustin, S. L. & Middleton, E. M. Current and near-term advances in Earth observation for ecological applications. Ecol. Process. 10, 1 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wang, D. et al. Impact of sensor degradation on the MODIS NDVI time series. Remote Sens. Environ. 119, 55–61 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Zhang, Y., Song, C., Band, L. E., Sun, G. & Li, J. Reanalysis of global terrestrial vegetation trends from MODIS products: browning or greening? Remote Sens. Environ. 191, 145–155 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bhatt, R. et al. A consistent AVHRR visible calibration record based on multiple methods applicable for the NOAA degrading orbits. Part I: Methodology. J. Atmos. Ocean. Technol. 33, 2499–2515 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Frankenberg, C., Yin, Y., Byrne, B., He, L. & Gentine, P. Comment on “Recent global decline of CO2 fertilization effects on vegetation photosynthesis”. Science 373, eabg2947 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Los, S. O. Estimation of the ratio of sensor degradation between NOAA AVHRR channels 1 and 2 from monthly NDVI composites. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. 36, 206–213 (1998).Article 

Google Scholar 
Jiang, C. et al. Inconsistencies of interannual variability and trends in long-term satellite leaf area index products. Glob. Change Biol. 23, 4133–4146 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
de Beurs, K. M. & Henebry, G. M. Trend analysis of the Pathfinder AVHRR Land (PAL) NDVI data for the deserts of Central Asia. IEEE Geosci. Remote Sens. Lett. 1, 282–286 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wang, Z. et al. Large discrepancies of global greening: indication of multi-source remote sensing data. Global Ecol. Conserv. 34, e02016 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Miura, T., Huete, A. R. & Yoshioka, H. Evaluation of sensor calibration uncertainties on vegetation indices for MODIS. IEEE Trans Geosci. Remote Sens. 38, 1399–1409 (2000).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lyapustin, A. et al. Scientific impact of MODIS C5 calibration degradation and C6+ improvements. Atmos. Meas. Tech. 7, 4353–4365 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Buchhorn, M., Raynolds, M. K. & Walker, D. A. Influence of BRDF on NDVI and biomass estimations of Alaska Arctic tundra. Environ. Res. Lett. 11, 125002 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Fensholt, R., Sandholt, I., Proud, S. R., Stisen, S. & Rasmussen, M. O. Assessment of MODIS sun-sensor geometry variations effect on observed NDVI using MSG SEVIRI geostationary data. Int. J. Remote Sens. 31, 6163–6187 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Saleska, S. R. et al. Dry-season greening of Amazon forests. Nature 531, E4–E5 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lyapustin, A. I. et al. Multi-angle implementation of atmospheric correction for MODIS (MAIAC): 3. Atmospheric correction. Remote Sens. Environ. 127, 385–393 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Norris, J. R. & Walker, J. J. Solar and sensor geometry, not vegetation response, drive satellite NDVI phenology in widespread ecosystems of the western United States. Remote Sens. Environ. 249, 112013 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Roy, D. P. et al. A general method to normalize Landsat reflectance data to nadir BRDF adjusted reflectance. Remote Sens. Environ. 176, 255–271 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Schaaf, C. B. et al. First operational BRDF, albedo nadir reflectance products from MODIS. Remote Sens. Environ. 83, 135–148 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
Didan, K., Munoz, A. B., Solano, R. & Huete, A. MODIS Vegetation Index User’s Guide (MOD13 Series) (Univ. Arizona, 2015).Wang, Z., Schaaf, C. B., Sun, Q., Shuai, Y. & Román, M. O. Capturing rapid land surface dynamics with Collection V006 MODIS BRDF/NBAR/Albedo (MCD43) products. Remote Sens. Environ. 207, 50–64 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Saleska, S. R., Didan, K., Huete, A. R. & Da Rocha, H. R. Amazon forests green-up during 2005 drought. Science 318, 612 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
Vargas, M., Miura, T., Shabanov, N. & Kato, A. An initial assessment of Suomi NPP VIIRS vegetation index EDR. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 118, 12,301–12,316 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kobayashi, H. & Dye, D. G. Atmospheric conditions for monitoring the long-term vegetation dynamics in the Amazon using normalized difference vegetation index. Remote Sens. Environ. 97, 519–525 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
Jiang, C. & Fang, H. GSV: a general model for hyperspectral soil reflectance simulation. Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinf. 83, 101932 (2019).
Google Scholar 
Verrelst, J., Schaepman, M. E., Malenovský, Z. & Clevers, J. G. Effects of woody elements on simulated canopy reflectance: Implications for forest chlorophyll content retrieval. Remote Sens. Environ. 114, 647–656 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Huete, A. & Tucker, C. Investigation of soil influences in AVHRR red and near-infrared vegetation index imagery. Int. J. Remote Sens. 12, 1223–1242 (1991).Article 

Google Scholar 
Farrar, T., Nicholson, S. & Lare, A. The influence of soil type on the relationships between NDVI, rainfall, and soil moisture in semiarid Botswana. II. NDVI response to soil oisture. Remote Sens. Environ. 50, 121–133 (1994).Article 

Google Scholar 
Huete, A. & Warrick, A. Assessment of vegetation and soil water regimes in partial canopies with optical remotely sensed data. Remote Sens. Environ. 32, 155–167 (1990).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wang, C. et al. A snow-free vegetation index for improved monitoring of vegetation spring green-up date in deciduous ecosystems. Remote Sens. Environ. 196, 1–12 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Myers-Smith, I. H. et al. Complexity revealed in the greening of the Arctic. Nat. Clim. Change 10, 106–117 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Shen, M. et al. No evidence of continuously advanced green-up dates in the Tibetan Plateau over the last decade. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. 110, E2329 (2013).
Google Scholar 
Hao, D. et al. Modeling anisotropic reflectance over composite sloping terrain. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. 56, 3903–3923 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Matsushita, B., Yang, W., Chen, J., Onda, Y. & Qiu, G. Sensitivity of the enhanced vegetation index (EVI) and normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI) to topographic effects: a case study in high-density cypress forest. Sensors 7, 2636–2651 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wen, J. et al. Characterizing land surface anisotropic reflectance over rugged terrain: a review of concepts and recent developments. Remote Sens. 10, 370 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Friedl, M. A., Davis, F. W., Michaelsen, J. & Moritz, M. Scaling and uncertainty in the relationship between the NDVI and land surface biophysical variables: an analysis using a scene simulation model and data from FIFE. Remote Sens. Environ. 54, 233–246 (1995).Article 

Google Scholar 
Tan, B. et al. The impact of gridding artifacts on the local spatial properties of MODIS data: implications for validation, compositing, and band-to-band registration across resolutions. Remote Sens. Environ. 105, 98–114 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wolfe, R. E. et al. Achieving sub-pixel geolocation accuracy in support of MODIS land science. Remote Sens. Environ. 83, 31–49 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ferreira, M. P. et al. Retrieving structural and chemical properties of individual tree crowns in a highly diverse tropical forest with 3D radiative transfer modeling and imaging spectroscopy. Remote Sens. Environ. 211, 276–291 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Huete, A. R. et al. Amazon rainforests green-up with sunlight in dry season. Geophys. Res. Lett. 33, L06405 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
Herrmann, S. M. & Tappan, G. G. Vegetation impoverishment despite greening: a case study from central Senegal. J. Arid Environ. 90, 55–66 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wang, X. et al. No consistent evidence for advancing or delaying trends in spring phenology on the Tibetan Plateau. J. Geophys. Res. Biogeosci. 122, 3288–3305 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Donnelly, A., Yu, R. & Liu, L. Comparing in situ spring phenology and satellite-derived start of season at rural and urban sites in Ireland. Int. J. Remote Sens. 42, 7821–7841 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Templ, B. et al. Pan European Phenological database (PEP725): a single point of access for European data. Int. J. Biometeorol. 62, 1109–1113 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Fu, Y. H. et al. Declining global warming effects on the phenology of spring leaf unfolding. Nature 526, 104–107 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Chen, X. & Yang, Y. Observed earlier start of the growing season from middle to high latitudes across the Northern Hemisphere snow-covered landmass for the period 2001–2014. Environ. Res. Lett. 15, 034042 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Alatorre, L. C. et al. Temporal changes of NDVI for qualitative environmental assessment of mangroves: shrimp farming impact on the health decline of the arid mangroves in the Gulf of California (1990–2010). J. Arid Environ. 125, 98–109 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Jacquemoud, S. & Baret, F. PROSPECT: a model of leaf optical properties spectra. Remote Sens. Environ. 34, 75–91 (1990).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wu, S. et al. Quantifying leaf optical properties with spectral invariants theory. Remote Sens. Environ. 253, 112131 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wang, Z. et al. Mapping foliar functional traits and their uncertainties across three years in a grassland experiment. Remote Sens. Environ. 221, 405–416 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Van Leeuwen, W. & Huete, A. Effects of standing litter on the biophysical interpretation of plant canopies with spectral indices. Remote Sens. Environ. 55, 123–138 (1996).Article 

Google Scholar 
Dechant, B. et al. NIRvP: a robust structural proxy for sun-induced chlorophyll fluorescence and photosynthesis across scales. Remote Sens. Environ. 268, 112763 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Zeng, Y. et al. Estimating near-infrared reflectance of vegetation from hyperspectral data. Remote Sens. Environ. 267, 112723 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Claverie, M. et al. The Harmonized Landsat and Sentinel-2 surface reflectance data set. Remote Sens. Environ. 219, 145–161 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hantson, S. & Chuvieco, E. Evaluation of different topographic correction methods for Landsat imagery. Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinf. 13, 691–700 (2011).
Google Scholar 
Zhang, H. K. et al. Characterization of Sentinel-2A and Landsat-8 top of atmosphere, surface, and nadir BRDF adjusted reflectance and NDVI differences. Remote Sens. Environ. 215, 482–494 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gao, F., Masek, J., Schwaller, M. & Hall, F. On the blending of the Landsat and MODIS surface reflectance: predicting daily Landsat surface reflectance. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. 44, 2207–2218 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
Zhu, X. et al. A flexible spatiotemporal method for fusing satellite images with different resolutions. Remote Sens. Environ. 172, 165–177 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Luo, Y., Guan, K. & Peng, J. STAIR: A generic and fully-automated method to fuse multiple sources of optical satellite data to generate a high-resolution, daily and cloud-/gap-free surface reflectance product. Remote Sens. Environ. 214, 87–99 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Houborg, R. & McCabe, M. F. Daily retrieval of NDVI and LAI at 3 m resolution via the fusion of CubeSat, Landsat, and MODIS data. Remote Sens. 10, 890 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kimm, H. et al. Deriving high-spatiotemporal-resolution leaf area index for agroecosystems in the US Corn Belt using Planet Labs CubeSat and STAIR fusion data. Remote Sens. Environ. 239, 111615 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kong, J. et al. Evaluation of four image fusion NDVI products against in-situ spectral-measurements over a heterogeneous rice paddy landscape. Agric. For. Meteorol. 297, 108255 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Köhler, P. et al. Global retrievals of solar-induced chlorophyll fluorescence with TROPOMI: first results and intersensor comparison to OCO-2. Geophys. Res. Lett. 45, 10,456–10,463 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Sun, Y. et al. OCO-2 advances photosynthesis observation from space via solar-induced chlorophyll fluorescence. Science 358, eaam5747 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Joiner, J., Yoshida, Y., Vasilkov, A. & Middleton, E. First observations of global and seasonal terrestrial chlorophyll fluorescence from space. Biogeosciences 8, 637–651 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Frankenberg, C. et al. New global observations of the terrestrial carbon cycle from GOSAT: patterns of plant fluorescence with gross primary productivity. Geophys. Res. Lett. 38, L17706 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Qiu, B., Ge, J., Guo, W., Pitman, A. J. & Mu, M. Responses of Australian dryland vegetation to the 2019 heat wave at a subdaily scale. Geophys. Res. Lett. 47, e2019GL086569 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Magney, T. S. et al. Mechanistic evidence for tracking the seasonality of photosynthesis with solar-induced fluorescence. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 11640–11645 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Guanter, L. et al. Potential of the TROPOspheric Monitoring Instrument (TROPOMI) onboard the Sentinel-5 Precursor for the monitoring of terrestrial chlorophyll fluorescence. Atmos. Meas. Tech. 8, 1337–1352 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Knyazikhin, Y. et al. Hyperspectral remote sensing of foliar nitrogen content. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110, E185–E192 (2013).
Google Scholar 
Li, X. & Xiao, J. A global, 0.05-degree product of solar-induced chlorophyll fluorescence derived from OCO-2, MODIS, and reanalysis data. Remote Sens. 11, 517 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Zeng, Y. et al. Combining near-infrared radiance of vegetation and fluorescence spectroscopy to detect effects of abiotic changes and stresses. Remote Sens. Environ. 270, 112856 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Shi, J. et al. Microwave vegetation indices for short vegetation covers from satellite passive microwave sensor AMSR-E. Remote Sens. Environ. 112, 4285–4300 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Talebiesfandarani, S. et al. Microwave vegetation index from multi-angular observations and its application in vegetation properties retrieval: theoretical modelling. Remote Sens. 11, 730 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wigneron, J.-P. et al. SMOS-IC data record of soil moisture and L-VOD: historical development, applications and perspectives. Remote Sens. Environ. 254, 112238 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Zhang, Y., Zhou, S., Gentine, P. & Xiao, X. Can vegetation optical depth reflect changes in leaf water potential during soil moisture dry-down events? Remote Sens. Environ. 234, 111451 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Frappart, F. et al. Global monitoring of the vegetation dynamics from the vegetation optical depth (VOD): a review. Remote Sens. 12, 2915 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Xiao, J., Fisher, J. B., Hashimoto, H., Ichii, K. & Parazoo, N. C. Emerging satellite observations for diurnal cycling of ecosystem processes. Nat. Plants 7, 877–887 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hashimoto, H. et al. New generation geostationary satellite observations support seasonality in greenness of the Amazon evergreen forests. Nat. Commun. 12, 684 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Somkuti, P. et al. Solar-induced chlorophyll fluorescence from the Geostationary Carbon Cycle Observatory (GeoCarb): An extensive simulation study. Remote Sens. Environ. 263, 112565 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gorelick, N. et al. Google Earth Engine: planetary-scale geospatial analysis for everyone. Remote Sens. Environ. 202, 18–27 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Richardson, A. D., Braswell, B. H., Hollinger, D. Y., Jenkins, J. P. & Ollinger, S. V. Near-surface remote sensing of spatial and temporal variation in canopy phenology. Ecol. Appl. 19, 1417–1428 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Daughtry, C. S. Discriminating crop residues from soil by shortwave infrared reflectance. Agron. J. 93, 125–131 (2001).Article 

Google Scholar  More

Animal husbandryCarukia barnesi polyps were available in culture from the James Cook University Aquarium, spawned from medusa originally collected near Double Island, North Queensland, Australia (16° 43.5′ S, 145° 41.0′ E) in 2014 and 20158. Populations exponentially increase through asexual reproduction8. Detached buds and swimming polyps were collected from the main culture, and transferred into 6-well tissue culture plates in natural filtered seawater. Plates were maintained in darkness to inhibit algae growth at 27 °C in a constant temperature cabinet. Buds and swimming polyps were left to develop and attach to well bottoms, at which point they were then fed freshly hatched Artemia nauplii and water changed 2–3 times per week. Lids remained attached to tissue culture plates to negate water evaporation and maintain a stable salinity. Polyps were maintained in this way for a minimum of 4 months before experiments began, with all individuals matured with the ability to asexually reproduce further buds. To preserve water quality15 polyps were starved for two days prior to experiment start and were not fed for the duration of the trials. One day prior to the experiment start, all immature buds and polyps were removed from wells, leaving approximately 5–10 mature polyps attached to the substrate for analysis.Preparation of reagentsReagentsSix chemicals were trialed in the current study to induce metamorphosis in C. barnesi polyps. Four indole containing compounds were chosen that have previously been trialed with other cubozoan species: 5-methoxy-2-methyl-3-indoleacetic acid, 5-methoxyindole-2-carboxylic acid, 2-methylindole16 and 5-Methoxy-2-methylindole15,16. Along with the retinoic X receptor 9-cis-retinoic acid and lugols solution.Indole compound treatmentsChemical concentrations of indoles documented in the literature were used to conduct preliminary concentration tests. Fifty mM stock solutions were prepared with 100% ethanol, which was diluted with filtered seawater to the desired experimental concentrations: 50 μM16, 20 μM and 5 μM15. Due to high fatality rates at all of these concentrations when used in this study on C. barnesi, all concentrations were diluted. Fifty mM stock solutions of 5-methoxy-2-methyl-3-indoleacetic acid, 5-methoxyindole-2-carboxylic acid, 2-methylindole and 5-Methoxy-2-methylindole were prepared with 50% ethanol (50% Milli-Q® water) and stored at − 20 °C. Fifty mM stock solutions were diluted with filtered seawater to the experimental concentrations of 5 μM, 1 μM, 0.5 μM, 0.1 μM and 0.05 μM. The carrier solution of 50% ethanol (50% Milli-Q® water) was diluted to the equivalent of the experimental concentrations listed above for use as a control, and incorporated into data as concentration 0. Seventeen ml of solution was added to polyps to fill each well of a 6-well plate.Iodine treatment (lugols solution)Aqueous iodine in the form of Lugols solution (0.37% iodine and 0.74% potassium iodide (sigma product information)) was prepared with equivalent concentrations of moles iodine/iodide: 1.5 μM, 3 μM, 6 μM, 12 μM and 24 μM. Filtered seawater only was used a control for this treatment and incorporated into data as concentration 0. 17 ml of solution was added to polyps to fill each well of a 6-well plate.Retinoid treatmentTo reduce ethanol associated fatality of polyps 0.015% ethanol in Milli-Q® water was used to prepare a 1 mM stock solution of 9-cis-Retinoic acid. The 1 mM stock solution was diluted with filtered seawater to the experimental concentrations of 5 μM, 1 μM, 0.5 μM, 0.1 μM and 0.05 μM. The carrier solution of 0.015% ethanol (Milli-Q® water) was diluted to the equivalent of the experimental concentrations listed above for use as a control, and incorporated into data as concentration 0. 17 ml of solution was added to polyps to fill each well of a 6-well plate.Metamorphosis trialsPrimary trialsExperimental concentrations of reagents were added to C. barnesi polyps growing in the wells of sterile 6-well tissue culture plates. One plate was used per chemical, per concentration, in which five wells functioned as replicates containing the chemical being trialed, whilst the sixth well contained only the control medium. Five concentrations were run for each of six chemicals; 30 plates in total.The filtered seawater the polyps were growing in was exchanged for the experimental chemical on day 0, and was not changed for the duration of the trial. Lids remained attached to tissue culture plates to negate water evaporation and hence salinity changes.Polyps in each well were photographed each day through a dissection microscope over a period of 34 days. Results were then recorded from the photographs, categorised (Fig. 6) as the number of polyps which displayed:Tentacle migration: one of the key signs of metamorphosis in this species, polyp tentacles merge, migrating to form four distinct corners in a square shape8.Detached medusa: a medusa formed and detached from the polyp, recorded regardless of health.Mobile detached medusa: a healthy medusa formed and detached from the polyp, with the ability to swim.Polyp survival: this was then used to calculate the number of polyps which survived the treatment which did not metamorphose.Optimisation trialThe optimal chemical and concentration was then deduced by choosing the combination that produced the largest percentage of healthy detached medusa, in this case 5-methoxy-2-methylindole at 1 μM. A final trial was then run with this to determine if length of chemical exposure could optimize healthy medusa yield. Three replicates of a minimum of five polyps were used per treatment, in which in 1 μM of 5-methoxy-2-methylindole (in seawater) was added to polyps for 24, 48, 72, 96 and 120 h, before the solution was changed to fresh seawater. A sea water only control was also run. The total number of healthy detached medusa were recorded each day.Data analysisAll statistical analysis was conducted in IBM SPSS Statistics Ver28. Graphs were produced in Microsoft Excel 2016 and OriginPro Graphing and Analysis 2021.Primary trialsThe effect of chemical, concentration and time was analysed using a repeated measures three-way ANOVA for four sets of data gathered during the metamorphosis process: percentage of polyps to display tentacle migration, percentage of polyps to have medusa detach, percentage of polyps to have healthy swimming medusa detach, percentage survival of polyps that did not metamorphose. Percentage data was arcsine square root transformed prior to analysis. Mauchly’s Test of Sphericity indicated that the assumption of sphericity had been violated on all four sets of data and therefore, a Greenhouse–Geisser correction was used.Optimisation trialDifferences in the mean percentage of healthy medusa produced at different exposure times was analysed using ANOVA. Differences between means were elucidated using a Post hoc Tukey pairwise comparison test (Tukey HSD alpha 0.05). More