Ecology

1.Bastviken, D. Methane. in Encyclopedia of Inland Waters (ed. Likens, G. E.) 783–805 (Elsevier, 2009). https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012370626-3.00117-42.Hanson, R. S. & Hanson, T. E. Methanotrophic bacteria. Microbiol. Rev. 60, 439–471 (1996).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
3.Thottathil, S. D., Reis, P. C. J., del Giorgio, P. A. & Prairie, Y. T. The extent and regulation of summer methane oxidation in Northern Lakes. J. Geophys. Res. Biogeosciences 123, 3216–3230 (2018).CAS 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
4.Kankaala, P., Taipale, S., Nykänen, H. & Jones, R. I. Oxidation, efflux, and isotopic fractionation of methane during autumnal turnover in a polyhumic, boreal lake. J. Geophys. Res. Biogeosciences 112, 1–7 (2007).
Google Scholar 
5.Kankaala, P., Huotari, J., Peltomaa, E., Saloranta, T. & Ojala, A. Methanotrophic activity in relation to methane efflux and total heterotrophic bacterial production in a stratified, humic, boreal lake. Limnol. Oceanogr. 51, 1195–1204 (2006).CAS 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
6.Bastviken, D., Ejlertsson, J., Sundh, I. & Tranvik, L. Methane as a source of carbon and energy for lake pelagic food webs. Ecology 84, 969–981 (2003).
Google Scholar 
7.Kankaala, P., Lopez Bellido, J., Ojala, A., Tulonen, T. & Jones, R. I. Variable production by different pelagic energy mobilizers in Boreal Lakes. Ecosystems 16, 1152–1164 (2013).CAS 

Google Scholar 
8.Morana, C. et al. Methanotrophy within the water column of a large meromictic tropical lake (Lake Kivu, East Africa). Biogeosciences 12, 2077–2088 (2015).ADS 

Google Scholar 
9.Grey, J. The incredible lightness of being methane-fuelled: stable isotopes reveal alternative energy pathways in aquatic ecosystems and beyond. Front. Ecol. Evol. 4, 1–14 (2016).
Google Scholar 
10.Jones, R. I. & Grey, J. Biogenic methane in freshwater food webs. Freshw. Biol. 56, 213–229 (2011).CAS 

Google Scholar 
11.Kankaala, P., Taipale, S. & Grey, J. Experimental d13C evidence for a contribution of methane to pelagic food webs in lakes. Limnol. Oceanogr. 51, 2821–2827 (2006).CAS 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
12.Guérin, F. & Abril, G. Significance of pelagic aerobic methane oxidation in the methane and carbon budget of a tropical reservoir. J. Geophys. Res. 112, 1–14 (2007).
Google Scholar 
13.Rasilo, T., Hutchins, R. H. S., Ruiz-González, C. & del Giorgio, P. A. Transport and transformation of soil-derived CO2, CH4 and DOC sustain CO2 supersaturation in small boreal streams. Sci. Total Environ. 579, 902–912 (2017).CAS 
PubMed 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
14.Soued, C. & Prairie, Y. T. The carbon footprint of a Malaysian tropical reservoir: measured versus modeled estimates highlight the underestimated key role of downstream processes. Biogeosciences 17, 515–227 (2020).CAS 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
15.Del Giorgio, P. A. & Gasol, J. M. Physiological structure and single-cell activity in marine bacterioplankton. in Microbial Ecology of the Oceans: Second Edition (ed. Kirchman, D. L.) 243–298 (John Wiley & Sons, Inc, 2008). https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470281840.ch816.Reis, P. C. J., Ruiz-González, C., Soued, C., Crevecoeur, S. & Prairie, Y. T. Rapid shifts in methanotrophic bacterial communities mitigate methane emissions from a tropical hydropower reservoir and its downstream river. Sci. Total Environ. 748, 141374 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
17.Thottathil, S. D., Reis, P. C. J. & Prairie, Y. T. Methane oxidation kinetics in northern freshwater lakes. Biogeochemistry 143, 105–116 (2019).CAS 

Google Scholar 
18.Milucka, J. et al. Methane oxidation coupled to oxygenic photosynthesis in anoxic waters. ISME J. 9, 1991–2002 (2015).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
19.Zigah, P. K. et al. Methane oxidation pathways and associated methanotrophic communities in the water column of a tropical lake. Limnol. Oceanogr. 60, 553–572 (2015).ADS 

Google Scholar 
20.Mayr, M. J. et al. Growth and rapid succession of methanotrophs effectively limit methane release during lake overturn. Commun. Biol. 3, 1–9 (2020).
Google Scholar 
21.Bussmann, I., Rahalkar, M. & Schink, B. Cultivation of methanotrophic bacteria in opposing gradients of methane and oxygen. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 56, 331–344 (2006).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
22.Kankaala, P., Eller, G. & Jones, R. I. Could bacterivorous zooplankton affect lake pelagic methanotrophic activity? Fundam. Appl. Limnol. / Arch. f.ür. Hydrobiol. 169, 203–209 (2007).
Google Scholar 
23.Khmelenina, V. N. et al. Structural and functional features of methanotrophs from hypersaline and alkaline lakes. Microbiology 79, 472–482 (2010).CAS 

Google Scholar 
24.Westfall, C. S. & Levin, P. A. Bacterial cell size: multifactorial and multifaceted. Annu. Rev. Microbiol. 71, 499–517 (2017).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
25.Chien, A. C., Hill, N. S. & Levin, P. A. Cell size control in bacteria. Curr. Biol. 22, R340–R349 (2012).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
26.Velimirov, B. Nanobacteria, ultramicrobacteria and starvation forms: a search for the smallest metabolizing bacterium. Microbes Environ. 16, 67–77 (2001).
Google Scholar 
27.Reis, P. C. J., Thottathil, S. D., Ruiz-González, C. & Prairie, Y. T. Niche separation within aerobic methanotrophic bacteria across lakes and its link to methane oxidation rates. Environ. Microbiol. 22, 738–751 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
28.Garcia-Chaves, M. C., Cottrell, M. T., Kirchman, D. L., Ruiz-González, C. & del Giorgio, P. A. Single-cell activity of freshwater aerobic anoxygenic phototrophic bacteria and their contribution to biomass production. Isme J. 10, 1579–1588 (2016).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
29.Jürgens, K. & Matz, C. Predation as a shaping force for the phenotypic and genotypic composition of planktonic bacteria. Antonie van Leeuwenhoek. Int. J. Gen. Mol. Microbiol. 81, 413–434 (2002).
Google Scholar 
30.Rautio, M. & Vincent, W. F. Benthic and pelagic food resources for–zooplankton in shallow high-latitude lakes and ponds. Freshw. Biol. 51, 1038–1052 (2006).CAS 

Google Scholar 
31.Rissanen, A. J. et al. Gammaproteobacterial methanotrophs dominate methanotrophy in aerobic and anaerobic layers of boreal lake waters. Aquat. Microb. Ecol. 81, 257–276 (2018).
Google Scholar 
32.Zimmermann, M. et al. Microbial methane oxidation efficiency and robustness during lake overturn. Limnol. Oceanogr. Lett. 6, 320–328 (2021).CAS 

Google Scholar 
33.Puri, A. W. et al. Genetic tools for the industrially promising methanotroph Methylomicrobium buryatense. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 81, 1775–1781 (2015).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
34.Strong, P. J., Kalyuzhnaya, M., Silverman, J. & Clarke, W. P. A methanotroph-based biorefinery: potential scenarios for generating multiple products from a single fermentation. Bioresour. Technol. 215, 314–323 (2016).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
35.Oswald, K. et al. Aerobic gammaproteobacterial methanotrophs mitigate methane emissions from oxic and anoxic lake waters. Limnol. Oceanogr. 61, S101–S118 (2016).
Google Scholar 
36.Smith, E. M. & Prairie, Y. T. Bacterial metabolism and growth efficiency in lakes: the importance of phosphorus availability. Limnol. Oceanogr. 49, 137–147 (2004).CAS 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
37.Del Giorgio, P. A., Cole, J. J., Caraco, N. F. & Peters, R. H. Linking planktonic biomass and metabolism to net gas fluxes in northern temperate lakes. Ecology 80, 1422–1431 (1999).
Google Scholar 
38.Kellerman, A. M., Dittmar, T., Kothawala, D. N. & Tranvik, L. J. Chemodiversity of dissolved organic matter in lakes driven by climate and hydrology. Nat. Commun. 5, 3804 (2014).CAS 
PubMed 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
39.Sun, L., Perdue, E. M., Meyer, J. L. & Weis, J. Use of elemental composition to predict bioavailability of dissolved organic matter in a Georgia river. Limnol. Oceanogr. 42, 714–721 (1997).CAS 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
40.Kellerman, A. M., Kothawala, D. N., Dittmar, T. & Tranvik, L. J. Persistence of dissolved organic matter in lakes related to its molecular characteristics. Nat. Geosci. 8, 454–457 (2015).CAS 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
41.Guillemette, F. & del Giorgio, P. A. Reconstructing the various facets of dissolved organic carbon bioavailability in freshwater ecosystems. Limnol. Oceanogr. 56, 734–748 (2011).CAS 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
42.Logue, J. B. et al. Experimental insights into the importance of aquatic bacterial community composition to the degradation of dissolved organic matter. ISME J. 10, 533–545 (2016).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
43.Salcher, M. M., Posch, T. & Pernthaler, J. In situ substrate preferences of abundant bacterioplankton populations in a prealpine freshwater lake. ISME J. 7, 896–907 (2013).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
44.Sobek, S., Tranvik, L. J., Prairie, Y., Kortelainen, P. & Cole, J. J. Patterns and regulation of dissolved organic carbon: an analysis of 7,500 widely distributed lakes. Limnol. Oceanogr. 52, 1208–1219 (2007).CAS 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
45.Kalyuzhnaya, M. G. et al. Highly efficient methane biocatalysis revealed in a methanotrophic bacterium. Nat. Commun. 4, 2785 (2013).CAS 
PubMed 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
46.Oshkin, I. Y. et al. Methane-fed microbial microcosms show differential community dynamics and pinpoint taxa involved in communal response. ISME J. 9, 1119–1129 (2014).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
47.Chistoserdova, L. & Kalyuzhnaya, M. G. Current trends in methylotrophy. Trends Microbiol 26, 703–714 (2018).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
48.Martinez-Cruz, K. et al. Anaerobic oxidation of methane by aerobic methanotrophs in sub-Arctic lake sediments. Sci. Total Environ. 607–608, 23–31 (2017).PubMed 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
49.Samad, M. S. & Bertilsson, S. Seasonal variation in abundance and diversity of bacterial methanotrophs in five temperate lakes. Front. Microbiol. 8, 1–12 (2017).
Google Scholar 
50.Ricão Canelhas, M., Denfeld, B. A., Weyhenmeyer, G. A., Bastviken, D. & Bertilsson, S. Methane oxidation at the water-ice interface of an ice-covered lake. Limnol. Oceanogr. 61, S78–S90 (2016).ADS 

Google Scholar 
51.Houser, J. N. Water color affects the stratification, surface temperature, heat content, and mean epilimnetic irradiance of small lakes. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 63, 2447–2455 (2006).
Google Scholar 
52.Caplanne, S. & Laurion, I. Effect of chromophoric dissolved organic matter on epilimnetic stratification in lakes. Aquat. Sci. 70, 123–133 (2008).CAS 

Google Scholar 
53.Oswald, K. et al. Light-dependent aerobic methane oxidation reduces methane emissions from seasonally stratified lakes. PLoS ONE 10, e0132574 (2015).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
54.Savvichev, A. S. et al. Light-dependent methane oxidation is the major process of the methane cycle in the water column of the Bol’shie Khruslomeny Polar Lake. Microbiology 88, 370–374 (2019).CAS 

Google Scholar 
55.Baines, S. B. & Pace, M. L. The production of dissolved organic matter by phytoplankton and its importance to bacteria: patterns across marine and freshwater systems. Limnol. Oceanogr. 36, 1078–1090 (1991).ADS 

Google Scholar 
56.Cole, J. J., Likens, G. E. & Strayer, D. L. Photosynthetically produced dissolved organic carbon: an important carbon source for planktonic bacteria. Limnol. Oceanogr. 27, 1080–1090 (1982).CAS 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
57.Dumestre, J. et al. Influence of light intensity on methanotrophic bacterial activity in Petit Saut reservoir, French Guiana. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 65, 534–539 (1999).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
58.Murase, J. & Sugimoto, A. Inhibitory effect of light on methane oxidation in the pelagic water column of a mesotrophic lake (Lake Biwa, Japan). Limnol. Oceanogr. 50, 1339–1343 (2005).CAS 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
59.Moran, M. A. & Hodson, R. E. Bacterial production on humic and nonhumic components of dissolved organic carbon. Limnol. Oceanogr. 35, 1744–1756 (1990).CAS 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
60.Azam, F. et al. The ecological role of water-column microbes in the sea. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 10, 257–263 (1983).ADS 

Google Scholar 
61.Roulet, N. & Moore, T. R. Browning the waters. Nature 444, 283–284 (2006).CAS 
PubMed 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
62.Weyhenmeyer, G. A., Prairie, Y. T. & Tranvik, L. J. Browning of boreal freshwaters coupled to carbon-iron interactions along the aquatic continuum. PLoS ONE 9, e88104 (2014).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
63.O’Reilly, C. M. et al. Rapid and highly variable warming of lake surface waters around the globe. Geophys. Res. Lett. 42, 10773–10781 (2015).ADS 

Google Scholar 
64.Yamamoto, S., Alcauskas, J. B. & Crozier, T. E. Solubility of methane in distilled water and seawater. J. Chem. Eng. Data 21, 78–80 (1976).CAS 

Google Scholar 
65.Cantin, A., Beisner, B. E., Gunn, J. M., Prairie, Y. T. & Winter, J. G. Effects of thermocline deepening on lake plankton communities. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 68, 260–276 (2011).
Google Scholar 
66.Smith, D. C. & Azam, F. A simple, economical method for measuring bacterial protein synthesis rates in seawater using 3H-leucine. Mar. Microb. Food Webs 6, 107–114 (1992).
Google Scholar 
67.Del Giorgio, P. A., Pace, M. L. & Fischer, D. Relationship of bacterial growth efficiency to spatial variation in bacterial activity in the Hudson River. Aquat. Microb. Ecol. 45, 55–67 (2006).
Google Scholar 
68.Eller, G., Stubner, S. & Frenzel, P. Group-specific 16S rRNA targeted probes for the detection of type I and type II methanotrophs by fluorescence in situ hybridisation. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 198, 91–97 (2001).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
69.Zeder, M. ACME tool3. (2014).70.Callieri, C. et al. Bacteria, Archaea, and Crenarchaeota in the epilimnion and hypolimnion of a deep holo-oligomictic lake. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 75, 7298–7300 (2009).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
71.Lew, S. & Glińska-Lewczuk, K. Environmental controls on the abundance of methanotrophs and methanogens in peat bog lakes. Sci. Total Environ. 645, 1201–1211 (2018).CAS 
PubMed 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
72.Fagerbakke, K. M., Heldal, M. & Norland, S. Content of carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, sulfur and phosphorus in native aquatic and cultured bacteria. Aquat. Microb. Ecol. 10, 15–27 (1996).
Google Scholar 
73.Read J. S. et al. Derivation of lake mixing and stratification indices from high-resolution lake buoy data. Environmental Modelling and Software. 26, 1325–1336 (2011).
Google Scholar 
74.R Core Team. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. (2019). https://www.R-project.org/.75.RStudio Team. RStudio: Integrated Development for R. RStudio, Inc., Boston, MAURL. (2018). http://www.rstudio.com/.76.Wickham, H., François, R., Henry, L. & Müller, K. dplyr: A Grammar of Data Manipulation. R package version 0.8.3. (2019). https://cran.r-project.org/package=dplyr.77.Sievert, C. Interactive Web-Based Data Visualization with R, plotly, and shiny. Chapman and Hall/CRC Florida. (2020).78.Wickham, H. ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis. (Springer-Verlag, New York, 2016). https://ggplot2.tidyverse.org.79.Wilke, C.O. cowplot: Streamlined Plot Theme and Plot Annotations for ‘ggplot2’. R package version 1.0.0. (2019). https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=cowplot.80.Auguie, B. gridExtra: Miscellaneous Functions for ‘Grid’ Graphics. R package version 2.3. (2017). https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=gridExtra.81.Reis, P. C. J., Thottathil, S. D. & Prairie, Y. T. Dataset: the role of methanotrophy in the microbial carbon metabolism of temperate lakes. (1.0.0) [Data set]. Zenodo. (2021). https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5737277. More

1.Sogin, M. L. et al. Microbial diversity in the deep sea and the underexplored “rare biosphere”. P Natl Acad. Sci. USA 103, 12115–12120 (2006).CAS 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
2.Pedros-Alio, C. The rare bacterial biosphere. Ann. Rev. Mar. Sci. 4, 449–466 (2012).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
3.Lynch, M. D. J. & Neufeld, J. D. Ecology and exploration of the rare biosphere. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 13, 217–229 (2015).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
4.Campbell, B. J., Yu, L. Y., Heidelberg, J. F. & Kirchman, D. L. Activity of abundant and rare bacteria in a coastal ocean. P Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108, 12776–12781 (2011).CAS 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
5.Gobet, A. et al. Diversity and dynamics of rare and of resident bacterial populations in coastal sands. Isme J. 6, 542–553 (2012).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
6.Wilhelm, L. et al. Rare but active taxa contribute to community dynamics of benthic biofilms in glacier-fed streams. Environ. Microbiol. 16, 2514–2524 (2014).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
7.Lawson, C. E. et al. Rare taxa have potential to make metabolic contributions in enhanced biological phosphorus removal ecosystems. Environ. Microbiol. 17, 4979–4993 (2015).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
8.Newton, R. J. & Shade, A. Lifestyles of rarity: understanding heterotrophic strategies to inform the ecology of the microbial rare biosphere. Aquat. Micro. Ecol. 78, 51–63 (2016).
Google Scholar 
9.Lauro, F. M. et al. The genomic basis of trophic strategy in marine bacteria. P Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106, 15527–15533 (2009).CAS 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
10.Klappenbach, J. A., Dunbar, J. M. & Schmidt, T. M. RRNA operon copy number reflects ecological strategies of bacteria. Appl Environ. Micro. 66, 1328–1333 (2000).CAS 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
11.Roller, B. R. K., Stoddard, S. F. & Schmidt, T. M. Exploiting rRNA operon copy number to investigate bacterial reproductive strategies. Nat. Microbiol. 1, 16160 (2016).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
12.Polz, M. F. & Cordero, O. X. Bacterial evolution: genomics of metabolic trade-offs. Nat. Microbiol. 1, 16181 (2016).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
13.Giovannoni, S. J. SAR11 bacteria: the most abundant plankton in the oceans. Ann. Rev. Mar. Sci. 9, 231–255 (2017).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
14.Elser, J. J. et al. Biological stoichiometry from genes to ecosystems. Ecol. Lett. 3, 540–550 (2000).
Google Scholar 
15.Hessen, D. O., Elser, J. J., Sterner, R. W. & Urabe, J. Ecological stoichiometry: an elementary approach using basic principles. Limnol. Oceanogr. 58, 2219–2236 (2013).CAS 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
16.Acharya, K., Kyle, M. & Elser, J. J. Biological stoichiometry of Daphnia growth: an ecophysiological test of the growth rate hypothesis. Limnol. Oceanogr. 49, 656–665 (2004).CAS 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
17.Hendrixson, H. A., Sterner, R. W. & Kay, A. D. Elemental stoichiometry of freshwater fishes in relation to phylogeny, allometry and ecology. J. Fish. Biol. 70, 121–140 (2007).
Google Scholar 
18.Matzek, V. & Vitousek, P. M. N: P stoichiometry and protein: RNA ratios in vascular plants: an evaluation of the growth-rate hypothesis. Ecol. Lett. 12, 765–771 (2009).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
19.Ghoul, M. & Mitri, S. The ecology and evolution of microbial competition. Trends Microbiol 24, 833–845 (2016).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
20.Laland, K., Matthews, B. & Feldman, M. W. An introduction to niche construction theory. Evol. Ecol. 30, 191–202 (2016).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
21.Ratzke, C., Barrere, J. & Gore, J. Strength of species interactions determines biodiversity and stability in microbial communities. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 4, 376–383 (2020).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
22.Větrovský, T. & Baldrian, P. The variability of the 16S rRNA gene in bacterial genomes and its consequences for bacterial community analyses. Plos ONE 8, e57923 (2013).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
23.Molenaar, D., van Berlo, R., de Ridder, D. & Teusink, B. Shifts in growth strategies reflect tradeoffs in cellular economics. Mol. Syst. Biol. 5, 323–323 (2009).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
24.Nemergut, D. R. et al. Decreases in average bacterial community rRNA operon copy number during succession. Isme J. 10, 1147–1156 (2016).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
25.Wu, L. W. et al. Microbial functional trait of rRNA operon copy numbers increases with organic levels in anaerobic digesters. Isme J. 11, 2874–2878 (2017).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
26.Wu, L. W. et al. Global diversity and biogeography of bacterial communities in wastewater treatment plants. Nat. Microbiol. 4, 2579–2579 (2019).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
27.Stoddard, S. F., Smith, B. J., Hein, R., Roller, B. R. K. & Schmidt, T. M. rrnDB: improved tools for interpreting rRNA gene abundance in bacteria and archaea and a new foundation for future development. Nucleic Acids Res. 43, D593–D598 (2015).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
28.Dai, T. et al. Dynamics of coastal bacterial community average ribosomal RNA operon copy number reflect its response and sensitivity to ammonium and phosphate. Environ. Pollut. 260, 113971 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
29.Zhou, J., Deng, Y., Luo, F., He, Z. & Yang, Y. Phylogenetic molecular ecological network of soil microbial communities in response to elevated CO2. Mbio 2, e00122–00111 (2011).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
30.Vellend, M. Conceptual Synthesis in Community Ecology. Q Rev. Biol. 85, 183–206 (2010).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
31.Frey, E. Evolutionary game theory: Theoretical concepts and applications to microbial communities. Phys. A 389, 4265–4298 (2010).MathSciNet 
CAS 
MATH 

Google Scholar 
32.Boeuf, D. et al. Biological composition and microbial dynamics of sinking particulate organic matter at abyssal depths in the oligotrophic open ocean. P Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 11824 (2019).CAS 

Google Scholar 
33.Thompson, L. R. et al. A communal catalogue reveals Earth’s multiscale microbial diversity. Nature 551, 457–463 (2017).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
34.Gralka, M., Szabo, R., Stocker, R. & Cordero, O. X. Trophic Interactions and the Drivers of Microbial Community Assembly. Curr. Biol. 30, R1176–R1188 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
35.Gorter, F. A., Manhart, M. & Ackermann, M. Understanding the evolution of interspecies interactions in microbial communities. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 375, 20190256 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
36.Gandhi, S. R., Korolev, K. S. & Gore, J. Cooperation mitigates diversity loss in a spatially expanding microbial population. P Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 23582–23587 (2019).CAS 

Google Scholar 
37.Calatayud, J. et al. Positive associations among rare species and their persistence in ecological assemblages. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 4, 40–45 (2020).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
38.Furman, O. et al. Stochasticity constrained by deterministic effects of diet and age drive rumen microbiome assembly dynamics. Nat. Commun. 11, 1904 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
39.Tardy, V. et al. Stability of soil microbial structure and activity depends on microbial diversity. Env. Microbiol. Rep. 6, 173–183 (2014).CAS 

Google Scholar 
40.Coyte, K. Z., Schluter, J. & Foster, K. R. The ecology of the microbiome: networks, competition, and stability. Science 350, 663–666 (2015).CAS 
PubMed 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
41.Blanchet, F. G., Cazelles, K. & Gravel, D. Co-occurrence is not evidence of ecological interactions. Ecol. Lett. 23, 1050–1063 (2020).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
42.Blasche, S. et al. Metabolic cooperation and spatiotemporal niche partitioning in a kefir microbial community. Nat. Microbiol. 6, 196–208 (2021).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
43.Chatzinikolaou, E. et al. Spatio-temporal benthic biodiversity patterns and pollution pressure in three Mediterranean touristic ports. Sci. Total Environ. 624, 648–660 (2018).CAS 
PubMed 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
44.Filippini, G. et al. Sediment bacterial communities associated with environmental factors in Intermittently Closed and Open Lakes and Lagoons (ICOLLs). Sci. Total Environ. 693, 133462 (2019).CAS 
PubMed 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
45.Pesant, S. et al. Open science resources for the discovery and analysis of Tara Oceans data. Sci. Data 2, 150023 (2015).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
46.Huse, S. M. et al. Exploring microbial diversity and taxonomy using SSU rRNA hypervariable tag sequencing. Plos Genet. 4, e1000255 (2008).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
47.Salas-González, I. et al. Coordination between microbiota and root endodermis supports plant mineral nutrient homeostasis. Science 371, eabd0695 (2021).PubMed 

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

Google Scholar 
49.Wear, E. K., Wilbanks, E. G., Nelson, C. E. & Carlson, C. A. Primer selection impacts specific population abundances but not community dynamics in a monthly time-series 16S rRNA gene amplicon analysis of coastal marine bacterioplankton. Environ. Microbiol. 20, 2709–2726 (2018).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
50.Edgar, R. C. UPARSE: highly accurate OTU sequences from microbial amplicon reads. Nat. Methods 10, 996–998 (2013).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
51.Webb, C. O., Ackerly, D. D., McPeek, M. A. & Donoghue, M. J. Phylogenies and community ecology. Annu Rev. Ecol. Syst. 33, 475–505 (2002).
Google Scholar 
52.Wu, L. W. et al. Long-term successional dynamics of microbial association networks in anaerobic digestion processes. Water Res. 104, 1–10 (2016).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
53.Galand, P. E., Casamayor, E. O., Kirchman, D. L. & Lovejoy, C. Ecology of the rare microbial biosphere of the Arctic Ocean. P Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106, 22427–22432 (2009).CAS 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
54.Ju, F. & Zhang, T. Bacterial assembly and temporal dynamics in activated sludge of a full-scale municipal wastewater treatment plant. Isme J. 9, 683–695 (2015).CAS 
PubMed 
ADS 

Google Scholar  More

1.Lyson, T. R. et al. Origin of the unique ventilatory apparatus of turtles. Nat. Commun. 5(5211), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms6211 (2014).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
2.Gans, C. & Hughes, G. The mechanism of lung ventilation in the tortoise Testudo graeca Linné. J. Exp. Biol. 47(1), 1–20 (1967).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
3.Jackson, D. C., Singer, J. H. & Downey, P. T. Oxidative cost of breathing in the turtle Chrysemys picta bellii. Am. J. Physiol. 261, R1325–R1328 (1991).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
4.Landberg, T., Mailhot, J. D. & Brainerd, E. L. Lung ventilation during treadmill locomotion in a semi-aquatic turtle, Trachemys scripta. J. Exp. Zool. 311A, 551–562. https://doi.org/10.1002/jez.478 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
5.Ruhr, I., Rose, K., Sellers, W., Crossley, D. II. & Codd, J. Turning turtle: Scaling relationships and self-righting ability in Chelydra serpentina. Proc. R. Soc. B. 288, 20210213. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2021.0213 (2021).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
6.Pritchard, P. C. H. Encyclopaedia of Turtles (TFH, 1979).
Google Scholar 
7.Carr, A. Handbook of Turtles: The Turtles of the United States, Canada, and Baja California (Cornell University Press, 1952).
Google Scholar 
8.Rivera, G. Ecomorphological variation in shell shape of the freshwater turtle Pseudemys concinna inhabiting different aquatic flow regimes. Int. Comp. Biol. 48(6), 769–787. https://doi.org/10.1093/icb/icn088 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
9.McNeill Alexander, R. Gaits of mammals and turtles. J. R. Soc. Jpn. 11(3), 314–319 (1993).Article 

Google Scholar 
10.Zani, P. A. & Kram, R. Low metabolic cost of locomotion in ornate box turtles, Terrapene ornate. J. Exp. Biol. 211, 3671–3676. https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.019869 (2008).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
11.Sellers, W. I., Rose, K. A. R., Crossley, D. A. II. & Codd, J. R. Inferring cost of transport from whole-body kinematics in three sympatric turtle species with different locomotor habits. Comp. Biochem. Physiol. A. 247, 110739. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cbpa.2020.110739 (2020).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
12.Chiari, Y., van der Meijden, A., Caccone, A., Claude, J. & Gilles, B. Self-righting potential and the evolution of shell shape in Galápagos tortoises. Sci. Rep. 7(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-15787-7 (2017).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
13.Woledge, R. C. The energetics of tortoise muscle. J. Physiol. 197(3), 685–707 (1968).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
14.Steyermark, A. C. & Spotila, J. R. Body temperature and maternal identity affect snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina) righting response. Copeia 4, 1050–1057. https://doi.org/10.1643/0045-8511(2001)001[1050:BTAMIA]2.0.CO;2 (2001).Article 

Google Scholar 
15.Rubin, A. M., Blob, R. W. & Mayerl, C. J. Biomechanical factors influencing successful self-righting in the Pleurodire turtle, Emydura subglobosa. J. Exp. Biol. 221, jeb182642. https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.182642 (2018).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
16.Penn, D. & Brockmann, H. J. Age-biased stranding and righting in male horseshoe crabs, Limulus polyphemus. Anim. Behav. 49, 1531–1539. https://doi.org/10.1016/003-3472(95)90074-8 (1995).Article 

Google Scholar 
17.Bonnet, X. et al. Sexual dimorphism in steppe tortoises (Testudo horsfieldii): Influence of the environment and sexual selection on body shape and mobility. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 72, 357–372. https://doi.org/10.1006/bjls.2000.0504 (2001).Article 

Google Scholar 
18.Zuffi, M. A. L. & Corti, C. Aspects of population ecology of Testudo hermanni hermanni from Asinara Island, NW Sardinia (Italy, Western Mediterranean Sea): Preliminary data. Amphib-Reptil. 24, 441–447 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
19.Domokos, G. & Várkonyi, P. L. Geometry and self-righting of turtles. Proc. R. Soc. B. 275(1630), 11–17. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2007.1188 (2008).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
20.Mann, G. K. H., O’Riain, M. J. & Hofmeyr, M. D. Shaping up to fight: Sexual selection influences body shape and size in the fighting tortoise (Chersina angulata). J. Zool. 269, 373–379. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7998.2006.00079x (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
21.Golubović, A., Bonnet, X., Djordjević, S., Djurakic, M. & Tomović, L. Variations in righting behavior across Hermann’s tortoise populations. J. Zool. 291, 69–75. https://doi.org/10.1111/jzo.12047 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
22.Golubović, A., Andelkovic, M., Arsovski, D., Bonnet, X. & Tomović, L. Locomotor performances reflect habitat constraints in an armoured species. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 71, 93. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-017-2318-0 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
23.Ashe, V. M. The righting reflex in turtles: A description and comparison. Psychol. Sci. 20, 150–152. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03335647 (1970).Article 

Google Scholar 
24.Golubović, A., Tomović, L. & Ivanović, A. Geometry of self-righting: The case of Hermann’s tortoises. Zool. Anz. 254, 99–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcz.2014.12.003 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
25.Finkler, M. S. Influence of water availability during hatching on hatchling size, body composition, desiccation tolerance, and terrestrial locomotor performance in the snapping turtle, Chelydra serpentina. Physiol. Biochem. Zool. 72, 714–722. https://doi.org/10.1086/316711 (1999).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
26.Stojadinović, D., Milošević, D. & Crnobrnja-Isailović, J. Righting time versus shell size and shape dimorphism in adult Hermann’s tortoises: Field observations meet theoretical predictions. Anim. Biol. 63(4), 381–396. https://doi.org/10.1163/15707563-00002420 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
27.Delmas, V., Baudry, E., Girondot, M. & Prevot-Julliard, A.-C. The righting reflex as a fitness indicator in freshwater turtles. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 91, 99–109. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8312/2007.00780.x (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
28.Burger, J. Behavior of hatchling diamondback terrapins (Malaclemys terrapin) in the field. Copeia 1976, 742. https://doi.org/10.2307/1443457 (1976).Article 

Google Scholar 
29.Landberg, T., Mailhot, J. D. & Brainerd, E. L. Lung ventilation during treadmill locomotion in a terrestrial turtle, Terrapene carolina. J. Exp. Biol. 206, 3391–3404. https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.00553 (2003).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
30.Gaunt, A. S. & Gans, C. Mechanics of respiration in the snapping turtle, Chelydra serpentina (Linné). J. Morph. 128, 195–227. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmor.1051280205 (1969).Article 

Google Scholar 
31.Lambertz, M., Böhme, W. & Perry, S. F. The anatomy of the respiratory system in Platysternon megacephalum Gray, 1831 (Testudines: Crytodira) and related species, and its phylogenetic implications. Comp. Biochem. Physiol. 156, 330–336. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cbpa.2009.12.016 (2010).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
32.de Souza, R. B. B. & Klein, W. The influence of the post-pulmonary septum and submersion on the pulmonary mechanics of Trachemys scripta (Cryptodira: Emydidae). J. Exp. Biol. 224(12), 242386. https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.242386 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
33.Jodice, P. G. R., Epperson, D. M. & Visser, G. H. Daily energy expenditure in free-ranging gopher tortoises (Gopherus polyphemus). Copeia 2006(1), 129–136. https://doi.org/10.1643/0045-8511(2006)006[0129:DEEIFG]2.0.CO;2 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
34.Zera, A. J. & Harshman, L. G. The physiology of life history trade-offs in animals. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 32, 95–126. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.32.081501.114006 (2001).Article 

Google Scholar 
35.Shadmehr, R., Huang, H. J. & Ahmed, A. A. A representation of effort in decision-making and motor control. Curr. Biol. 26, 1929–1934. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2016.05.065 (2016).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
36.Shepard, E. L. C. et al. Energy landscapes shapes animal movement ecology. Am. Nat. 182(3), 298–312. https://doi.org/10.1086/671257 (2013).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
37.Baudinette, R. V., Miller, A. M. & Sarre, M. P. Aquatic and terrestrial locomotory energetics in a toad and a turtle: A search for generalisations among ectotherms. Physiol. Biochem. Zool. 73(6), 672–682. https://doi.org/10.1086/318101 (2000).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
38.Hailey, A. & Coulson, I. M. Measurement of time budgets from continuous observation of thread-trailed tortoises (Kinixys spekii). Herp. J. 9, 15–20 (1999).
Google Scholar 
39.Kram, R. & Taylor, C. R. Energetics of running: A new perspective. Nature 346, 265–267. https://doi.org/10.1038/346265a0 (1990).CAS 
Article 
ADS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
40.Taylor, C. R. Relating mechanics and energetics during exercise. Adv. Vet. Sci. Comp. Med. 38A, 181–215 (1994).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
41.Cavagna, G. A. & Kaneko, M. Mechanical work and efficiency in level walking and running. J. Physiol. 268(2), 467–481. https://doi.org/10.1113/jphysiol.1977.sp011866 (1977).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
42.Carrier, D. R., Deban, S. M. & Fischbein, T. Locomotor function of the pectoral girdle “muscular sling” in trotting dogs. J. Exp. Biol. 209, 2224–2237. https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.02236 (2006).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
43.Heglund, N. C. & Cavagna, G. A. Efficiency of vertebrate locomotory muscles. J. Exp. Biol. 115, 283–292. https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.115.1.283 (1985).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
44.Barclay, C. J. The basis of difference in thermodynamic efficiency among skeletal muscles. Clin. Exp. Pharm. Physiol. 44(12), 1279–1286. https://doi.org/10.1111/1440-1681.12850 (2017).MathSciNet 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
45.Nwoye, L. O. & Goldspink, G. Biochemical efficiency and intrinsic shortening speed in selected fast and slow muscles. Experientia 37, 856–857. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF1985678 (1981).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
46.Lambert, M. Temperature, activity and field sighting in the Mediterranean spur-thighed or common garden tortoise Testudo graeca. Biol. Conserv. 21, 39–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/0006-3207(81)90067-7 (1981).Article 

Google Scholar 
47.Tracy, R., Zimmerman, L., Tracy, C., Bradley, K. & Castle, K. Rates of food passage in the digestive tract of young desert tortoises: Effects of body size and diet quality. Chelonian Conserv. Biol. 5(2), 269–273. https://doi.org/10.2744/1071-8443(2006)5[269:ROFPIT]2.0.co;2 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
48.Huey, R. & Kingsolver, J. Evolution of thermal sensitivity of ectotherm performance. Trends Ecol. Evol. 4(5), 131–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/0169-5347(89)90211-5 (1989).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
49.Lailvaux, S. & Irschick, D. Effects of temperature and sex on jump performance and biomechanics in the lizard Anolis carolinensis. Funct. Ecol. 21(3), 534–543. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2435.2007.01263.x (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
50.Lighton, J. Measuring Metabolic Rates: A Manual for Scientists (Oxford University Press, 2008).Book 

Google Scholar 
51.Brody, S. Bioenergetics and Growth (Reinhold, 1945).
Google Scholar  More

1.Rahmstorf, S. & Coumou, D. Increase of extreme events in a warming world. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. 108, 17905–17909 (2011).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
2.Barriopedro, D., Fischer, E. M., Luterbacher, J., Trigo, R. M. & Garcia-Herrera, R. The Hot Summer of 2010: Redrawing the temperature record map of Europe. Science 332, 220–224 (2011).CAS 
PubMed 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
3.Fischer, E. M. & Knutti, R. Detection of spatially aggregated changes in temperature and precipitation extremes. Geophys. Res. Lett. 41, 547–554 (2014).ADS 

Google Scholar 
4.Della-Marta, P. M., Haylock, M. R., Luterbacher, J. & Wanner, H. Doubled length of western European summer heat waves since 1880. J. Geophys. Res. 112, D15103 (2007).ADS 

Google Scholar 
5.Zscheischler, J. et al. Future climate risk from compound events. Nat. Clim. Chang. 8, 469–477 (2018).ADS 

Google Scholar 
6.Teskey, R. et al. Responses of tree species to heat waves and extreme heat events. Plant, Cell Environ. 38, 1699–1712 (2015).
Google Scholar 
7.Ciais, P. et al. Europe-wide reduction in primary productivity caused by the heat and drought in 2003. Nature 437, 529–533 (2005).CAS 
PubMed 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
8.Steppe, K., Sterck, F. & Deslauriers, A. Diel growth dynamics in tree stems: linking anatomy and ecophysiology. Trends Plant Sci. 20, 335–343 (2015).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
9.Peters, R. L. et al. Turgor—a limiting factor for radial growth in mature conifers along an elevational gradient. N. Phytol. 229, 213–229 (2021).CAS 

Google Scholar 
10.Meinzer, F. C., Johnson, D. M., Lachenbruch, B., McCulloh, K. A. & Woodruff, D. R. Xylem hydraulic safety margins in woody plants: Coordination of stomatal control of xylem tension with hydraulic capacitance. Funct. Ecol. 23, 922–930 (2009).
Google Scholar 
11.Anderegg, W. R. L., Berry, J. A. & Field, C. B. Linking definitions, mechanisms, and modeling of drought-induced tree death. Trends Plant Sci. 17, 693–700 (2012).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
12.Martínez‐Vilalta, J., Anderegg, W. R. L., Sapes, G. & Sala, A. Greater focus on water pools may improve our ability to understand and anticipate drought‐induced mortality in plants. N. Phytol. 223, 22–32 (2019).
Google Scholar 
13.Zweifel, R., Haeni, M., Buchmann, N. & Eugster, W. Are trees able to grow in periods of stem shrinkage? N. Phytol. 211, 839–849 (2016).
Google Scholar 
14.Dietrich, L., Zweifel, R. & Kahmen, A. Daily stem diameter variations can predict the canopy water status of mature temperate trees. Tree Physiol. 38, 941–952 (2018).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
15.Zweifel, R. et al. Why trees grow at night. N. Phytol. 231, 2174–2185 (2021).
Google Scholar 
16.Buras, A., Rammig, A. & Zang, C. S. Quantifying impacts of the 2018 drought on European ecosystems in comparison to 2003. Biogeosciences 17, 1655–1672 (2020).ADS 

Google Scholar 
17.Bastos, A. et al. Direct and seasonal legacy effects of the 2018 heat wave and drought on European ecosystem productivity. Sci. Adv. 6, eaba2724 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
18.Peters, W., Bastos, A., Ciais, P. & Vermeulen, A. A historical, geographical, and ecological perspective on the 2018 European summer drought. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 375, 20190505 (2020).
Google Scholar 
19.Albergel, C. et al. Monitoring and Forecasting the Impact of the 2018 Summer Heatwave on Vegetation. Remote Sens. 11, 520 (2019).ADS 

Google Scholar 
20.Smith, N. E. et al. Spring enhancement and summer reduction in carbon uptake during the 2018 drought in northwestern. Eur. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 375, 20190509 (2020).CAS 

Google Scholar 
21.Brun, P. et al. Large‐scale early‐wilting response of Central European forests to the 2018 extreme drought. Glob. Chang. Biol. 26, 7021–7035 (2020).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
22.Ramonet, M. et al. The fingerprint of the summer 2018 drought in Europe on ground-based atmospheric CO2 measurements. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 375, 20190513 (2020).CAS 

Google Scholar 
23.Bastos, A. et al. Impacts of extreme summers on European ecosystems: A comparative analysis of 2003, 2010 and 2018. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 375, 20190507 (2020).CAS 

Google Scholar 
24.Lin, Y.-S. et al. Optimal stomatal behaviour around the world. Nat. Clim. Chang. 5, 459–464 (2015).CAS 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
25.Schuldt, B. et al. A first assessment of the impact of the extreme 2018 summer drought on Central European forests. Basic Appl. Ecol. 45, 86–103 (2020).
Google Scholar 
26.Rita, A. et al. The impact of drought spells on forests depends on site conditions: The case of 2017 summer heat wave in southern Europe. Glob. Chang. Biol. 26, 851–863 (2020).PubMed 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
27.Hanewinkel, M., Cullmann, D. A., Schelhaas, M.-J., Nabuurs, G.-J. & Zimmermann, N. E. Climate change may cause severe loss in the economic value of European forest land. Nat. Clim. Chang. 3, 203–207 (2013).ADS 

Google Scholar 
28.Larysch, E., Stangler, D. F., Nazari, M., Seifert, T. & Kahle, H.-P. Xylem phenology and growth response of European beech, silver fir and scots pine along an elevational gradient during the extreme drought year 2018. Forests 12, 75 (2021).
Google Scholar 
29.Rohner, B., Kumar, S., Liechti, K., Gessler, A. & Ferretti, M. Tree vitality indicators revealed a rapid response of beech forests to the 2018 drought. Ecol. Indic. 120, 106903 (2021).
Google Scholar 
30.Scharnweber, T., Smiljanic, M., Cruz-García, R., Manthey, M. & Wilmking, M. Tree growth at the end of the 21st century – the extreme years 2018/19 as template for future growth conditions. Environ. Res. Lett. 15, 074022 (2020).ADS 

Google Scholar 
31.Kowalska, N. et al. Analysis of floodplain forest sensitivity to drought. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 375, 20190518 (2020).CAS 

Google Scholar 
32.Zweifel, R. et al. Baumwasserdefizite erreichten im Sommer 2018 Höchstwerte–war das aus dem All erkennbar. Schweiz Z. Forstwes. 171, 302–305 (2020).
Google Scholar 
33.Cuny, H. E. et al. Woody biomass production lags stem-girth increase by over one month in coniferous forests. Nat. Plants 1, 15160 (2015).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
34.D’Orangeville, L. et al. Drought timing and local climate determine the sensitivity of eastern temperate forests to drought. Glob. Chang. Biol. 24, 2339–2351 (2018).PubMed 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
35.Delpierre, N., Berveiller, D., Granda, E. & Dufrêne, E. Wood phenology, not carbon input, controls the interannual variability of wood growth in a temperate oak forest. N. Phytol. 210, 459–470 (2016).CAS 

Google Scholar 
36.Babst, F. et al. Above-ground woody carbon sequestration measured from tree rings is coherent with net ecosystem productivity at five eddy-covariance sites. N. Phytol. 201, 1289–1303 (2014).CAS 

Google Scholar 
37.Zweifel, R. et al. Determinants of legacy effects in pine trees – implications from an irrigation‐stop experiment. N. Phytol. 227, 1081–1096 (2020).CAS 

Google Scholar 
38.Anderegg, W. R. L. et al. Pervasive drought legacies in forest ecosystems and their implications for carbon cycle models. Science 349, 528–532 (2015).CAS 
PubMed 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
39.Zweifel, R., Zimmermann, L. & Newbery, D. M. Modeling tree water deficit from microclimate: An approach to quantifying drought stress. Tree Physiol. 25, 147–156 (2005).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
40.Gleason, S. M. et al. Weak tradeoff between xylem safety and xylem-specific hydraulic efficiency across the world’s woody plant species. N. Phytol. 209, 123–136 (2016).CAS 

Google Scholar 
41.Duursma, R. A. et al. On the minimum leaf conductance: its role in models of plant water use, and ecological and environmental controls. N. Phytol. 221, 693–705 (2019).
Google Scholar 
42.Poyatos, R., Aguadé, D. & Martínez-Vilalta, J. Below-ground hydraulic constraints during drought-induced decline in Scots pine. Ann. Sci. 75, 100 (2018).
Google Scholar 
43.Johnson, D. M., McCulloh, K. A., Woodruff, D. R. & Meinzer, F. C. Hydraulic safety margins and embolism reversal in stems and leaves: Why are conifers and angiosperms so different? Plant Sci. 195, 48–53 (2012).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
44.Brodribb, T. J., McAdam, S. A. M., Jordan, G. J. & Martins, S. C. V. Conifer species adapt to low-rainfall climates by following one of two divergent pathways. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. U.S.A 111, 14489–14493 (2014).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
45.Choat, B. et al. Global convergence in the vulnerability of forests to drought. Nature 491, 752–755 (2012).CAS 
PubMed 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
46.Drake, J. E. et al. Trees tolerate an extreme heatwave via sustained transpirational cooling and increased leaf thermal tolerance. Glob. Chang. Biol. 24, 2390–2402 (2018).PubMed 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
47.Anderegg, W. R. L., Trugman, A. T., Badgley, G., Konings, A. G. & Shaw, J. Divergent forest sensitivity to repeated extreme droughts. Nat. Clim. Chang. 10, 1091–1095 (2020).ADS 

Google Scholar 
48.Leuzinger, S., Zotz, G., Asshoff, R. & Korner, C. Responses of deciduous forest trees to severe drought in Central Europe. Tree Physiol. 25, 641–650 (2005).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
49.Brinkmann, N., Eugster, W., Zweifel, R., Buchmann, N. & Kahmen, A. Temperate tree species show identical response in tree water deficit but different sensitivities in sap flow to summer soil drying. Tree Physiol. 36, 1508–1519 (2016).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
50.Rosengren, U. et al. Functional biodiversity aspects on the nutrient sustainability in forests-Importance of root distribution. J. Sustain. 21, 77–100 (2006).
Google Scholar 
51.Salomón, R. L., Limousin, J.-M., Ourcival, J.-M., Rodríguez-Calcerrada, J. & Steppe, K. Stem hydraulic capacitance decreases with drought stress: implications for modelling tree hydraulics in the Mediterranean oak Quercus ilex. Plant. Cell Environ. 40, 1379–1391 (2017).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
52.Mencuccini, M. et al. Leaf economics and plant hydraulics drive leaf: wood area ratios. N. Phytol. 224, 1544–1556 (2019).
Google Scholar 
53.Guerrero-Ramírez, N. R. et al. Global root traits (GRooT). Database Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 30, 25–37 (2021).
Google Scholar 
54.Kattge, J. et al. TRY plant trait database—enhanced coverage and open access. Glob. Chang. Biol. 26, 119–188 (2020).PubMed 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
55.van der Maaten, E. et al. Species distribution models predict temporal but not spatial variation in forest growth. Ecol. Evol. 7, 2585–2594 (2017).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
56.Körner, C. No need for pipes when the well is dry—a comment on hydraulic failure in trees. Tree Physiol. 39, 695–700 (2019).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
57.Walthert, L. et al. From the comfort zone to crown dieback: Sequence of physiological stress thresholds in mature European beech trees across progressive drought. Sci. Total Environ. 753, 141792 (2021).CAS 
PubMed 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
58.Preisler, Y., Tatarinov, F., Grünzweig, J. M. & Yakir, D. Seeking the “point of no return” in the sequence of events leading to mortality of mature trees. Plant. Cell Environ. 44, 1315–1328 (2021).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
59.Poyatos, R. et al. Global transpiration data from sap flow measurements: The SAPFLUXNET database. Earth Syst. Sci. Data 13, 2607–2649 (2021).ADS 

Google Scholar 
60.Steppe, K., von der Crone, J. S. & De Pauw, D. J. W. TreeWatch.net: A water and carbon monitoring and modeling network to assess instant tree hydraulics and carbon status. Front. Plant Sci. 7, 993 (2016).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
61.Sass-Klaassen, U. et al. A tree-centered approach to assess impacts of extreme climatic events on forests. Front. Plant Sci. 7, 1–6 (2016).
Google Scholar 
62.Cailleret, M. et al. A synthesis of radial growth patterns preceding tree mortality. Glob. Chang. Biol. 23, 1675–1690 (2017).PubMed 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
63.Sparks, A. H., Hengl, T. & Nelson, A. GSODR: Global summary daily weather data in R. J. Open Source Softw. 2, 177 (2017).ADS 

Google Scholar 
64.Muñoz-Sabater, J. et al. ERA5-Land: An improved version of the ERA5 reanalysis land component. in Joint ISWG and LSA-SAF Workshop IPMA. 26–28 (2018).65.Granier, A. et al. Evidence for soil water control on carbon and water dynamics in European forests during the extremely dry year: 2003. Agric. Meteorol. 143, 123–145 (2007).
Google Scholar 
66.Karger, D. N. et al. Climatologies at high resolution for the earth’s land surface areas. Sci. Data 4, 170122 (2017).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
67.Cornes, R. C., van der Schrier, G., van den Besselaar, E. J. M. & Jones, P. D. An ensemble version of the E-OBS temperature and precipitation data sets. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 123, 9391–9409 (2018).
Google Scholar 
68.Frich, P. et al. Observed coherent changes in climatic extremes during the second half of the twentieth century. Clim. Res. 19, 193–212 (2002).ADS 

Google Scholar 
69.Alexander, L. V. et al. Global observed changes in daily climate extremes of temperature and precipitation. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 111, 1–22 (2006).
Google Scholar 
70.Knüsel, S., Peters, R. L., Haeni, M., Wilhelm, M. & Zweifel, R. Processing and extraction of seasonal tree physiological parameters from stem radius time series. Forests 12, 765 (2021).
Google Scholar 
71.Hedges, L. V., Gurevitch, J. & Curtis, P. S. The meta-analysis of response ratios in experimental ecology. Ecology 80, 1150–1156 (1999).
Google Scholar 
72.Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B. & Walker, S. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J. Stat. Softw. 67, 1–48 (2015).
Google Scholar 
73.R. Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. (2019). More

The broad categories of data included in the repository are summarized in Online-only Table 2 and visualized in Fig. 2. Each category is explained in greater detail below, while full details together with accompanying notes are given in the repository (Database_structure.csv) and in Supplementary File 1. Online-only Table 2 gives an overview of data coverage per category, both across all species and for native species separately. A complete list of data sources is available in Supplementary File 2.Fig. 2Visualization of the attributes presented in the database.Full size imageGeneration of the species listTaxon names listed in the most recent and widely accepted New Flora of the British Isles’ index12 were digitized via the Optical Character Recognition Software ReadirisTM 17 (IRIS). Results from the digitization were transferred into a spreadsheet and obvious recognition errors were fixed. The resulting table contained 5,687 taxa and associated taxonomic authorities. A total of 360 unnamed hybrids were excluded, as well as species noted to have only questionable or unconfirmed records, leaving 5,038 species. Forty-one intergeneric hybrid species, 827 entries relating to (notho)subspecies, (notho)varieties, cultivars and forma were also removed along with 720 named hybrids. Species that were included by Stace12 but which he considered not to be part of the flora (i.e. listed as ‘other species’ and ‘other genera’, e.g. genus Tragus or Coreopsis verticillata) were also excluded. Seven species that were labelled ‘extinct’ in the flora were included as there were indications that the species might be in the process of reintroduction (e.g. Bromus interruptus, Bupleurum falcatum and Schoenoplectus pungens). Extinct native and archaeophyte species without any signs of reintroduction (e.g. Dryopteris remota) are also listed but no additional data are provided and they are not included in calculations of completeness of data (Online-only Table 2). The final number of extant species listed here is therefore 3,209 (comprising 1,468 natives, 1,690 aliens and 51 species with unknown status), plus 18 formally extinct species (natives and archaeophytes not seen in the study region since 1999). Species names and taxonomic authorities were revised according to the 2021 reprint of the New Flora of the British Isles, communicated to us by C.A.S. ahead of publication. Genera with less well-defined species – for example due to apomixis – contain additional information on subgenera, sections, and aggregates, as per Stace12. Since misidentifications are common in these groups, we include a column termed ‘unclear_species_marker’ that allows for these species to be quickly identified and excluded from analyses if appropriate. Such genera are often incompletely listed in our database since most microspecies are not sufficiently well defined.TaxonomyNomenclature of the list was checked by Global Names Resolver in the R package ‘taxize’20,21, using the International Plant Names Index (IPNI)22 as the data source, to remove any digitisation errors. Resolved names were used to determine accepted higher taxonomic hierarchy (family, order) again using taxize, with the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) database. Species that could not be resolved by the Global Names Resolver or did not yield matches in the NCBI database for their higher taxonomic ranks were manually checked for name matches in the World Checklist of Vascular Plants (WCVP)17. Species within the original species list that were found to be identical to a different spelling in WCVP were retained in the database. In such instances, and when slight spelling differences occurred, the columns ‘taxon_name‘ and ‘taxon_name_WCVP‘ differ. To improve clarity, each species is presented here with its unique identification number according to the WCVP (listed as ‘kew_id’) together with three additional columns (i.e. WCVP.URL, POWO.URL and IPNI.URL) which contain hyperlinks to the freely accessible taxon description websites of the (WCVP)17, Plants of the World Online (POWO)23 and (IPNI)22, respectively. Thus, while the taxon names used in the database correspond to those used by Stace12, changes in the accepted species name since publication can be traced in columns ‘taxonomic_status’ and ‘accepted_kew_id’. The family classification of WCVP follows APG IV24 for angiosperms, Christenhusz et al. (2011)25 for gymnosperms and Christenhusz & Chase (2014)26 for ferns and lycopods.Native statusWe offer three different datasets which describe the status of a species as native or non-native, and its level of establishment in BI. The first is extracted from Stace (2019)12, the second contains the status codes used in PLANTATT10 and the unpublished ALIENATT (pers. comm. author K.J.W.) dataset, and the third is extracted from Alien Plants13. The status from Stace12 and Stace & Crawley13 assigns a species to either native or alien status, with aliens subdivided into archaeophytes and neophytes at different levels of establishment (e.g. denizen, colonist etc., see Online-only Table 1). Status codes from the BSBI can be either AC (alien casual), AN (neophyte), AR (archaeophyte), N (native), NE (native endemic) or NA (native status doubtful).Functional traitsData for five ecologically relevant functional traits (i.e. seed mass, specific leaf area [SLA], leaf area, leaf dry matter content [LDMC] and vegetative height) were downloaded from public data available in the TRY database27 (for specific authors see Supplementary File 1 and Supplementary File 2). Averages were calculated using the available measurements downloaded for each species, excluding rows where the measurement was 0. In addition, the maximum vegetative height for each species is given, where available.Realized niche descriptionRealized niche descriptions based on assessments made on plants living in BI are given in the form of Ellenberg indicator values18, as published in PLANTATT10. Ellenberg indicator values place each species along an environmental gradient (e.g. light or salinity) by assigning a number on an ordinal scale, depending on the species preference for the specific gradient (Online-only Table 2). This information is often used to gain insights into environmental changes based on species occurrences28. For species listed under a previously accepted name in PLANTATT, the information was associated with the accepted synonym in Stace (2019)12. Due to the low coverage of PLANTATT for non-native species included in our list, we additionally include Ellenberg indicator values based on Central European assessments, as made available by Döring29. Each Ellenberg category is listed in a separate column, keeping the information from both data sources separate to avoid confounding of assessments based on two different regions (i.e. Britain and Ireland versus Central Europe).Life strategyTo characterize the life strategy of a species, we used the CSR scheme developed by Grime19, which classifies each species as either a competitor (C), stress tolerator (S), ruderal (R) or a combination of these (e.g. CS, SR). CSR classifications were obtained from the Electronic Comparative Plant Ecology database30. Due to the low coverage of available CSR assessments for species in our database (i.e. data available for just 460 out of 3,209 species) we imputed CSR strategies for a further 981 species using available functional trait data, following the method proposed by Pierce et al.31. The functional leaf traits required for this method – i.e. specific leaf area, leaf area, leaf dry matter content – were obtained from the TRY database27. Pre-existing30 and newly imputed CSR strategies are listed in separate columns.Growth form, succulence and life-formPlant growth form descriptions were obtained from the TRY database27 and filtered for those entries given by specific contributors (Online-only Table 2) to maintain consistent use of growth form categories. Information on whether a species was considered to be a succulent was obtained by screening the entire growth form information obtained from the TRY database for the phrase ‘succulence’ or ‘succulent’.Species life-form categories according to Raunkiaer32 were determined for each species in our dataset with regard to the typical life-form of the species as it grows in BI (pers. comm. M.J.M.C.).Associated biome and originInformation given in the Ecoflora database3 for the biome that each species is associated with was matched to the species names according to Stace12. The recognized biome categories follow Preston & Hill33 and are ‘Arctic montane’, ‘Boreal Montane’, ‘Boreo-Arctic Montane’, ‘Boreo-Temperate’, ‘Mediterranean’, ‘Mediterranean-Atlantic’, ‘Southern Temperate’, ‘Temperate’, ‘Wide Boreal’ and ‘Wide Temperate’.For non-native species, the assumed origin (i.e. the region that plants were most likely to have been introduced to BI from, rather than the full non-BI distribution of a species) was adapted from Stace12 into a brief description of their country or region of origin. In addition, these descriptions were manually allocated to the TDWG level 1 regions listed in the World Geographical Scheme for Recording Plant Distributions (WGSRPD, TDWG)34.Species distributionsDistribution metrics for each species are given as the number of 10-km square hectads in BI with records for the species in question within a specified time window. The data were derived from the BSBI Distribution Database35 and were extracted for each species, dividing the study region into Great Britain (incl. Isle of Man), Ireland and the Channel Islands, as previously partitioned for data available in PLANTATT10. The database was queried using species and hectads for grouping, showing only records ‘matching or within 2 km of county boundary’ and excluding ‘do-not-map-flagged occurrences’. The data were not corrected for sampling bias and should therefore only be used as an indication of trends.Hybrid propensityData on hybridization is provided for 641 species, obtained from the Hybrid flora of the British Isles36 which enumerates every hybrid reported in BI up until 2015 (pers. comm. M.R.B.). Each entry was transcribed manually, and then filtered to exclude (a) hybrids that have been recorded, but not formed in the British Isles, (b) triple hybrids (mainly reported for the genus Salix), (c) doubtful records, (d) hybrids between subspecific ranks, and (e) hybrids where at least one parent is not native (only archaeophytes included). This left 821 hybrid combinations for data aggregation. The metric chosen here is hybrid propensity, which is a per-species metric of how many other species a focal species hybridizes with (sensu Whitney et al., 201037). A scaled hybrid propensity metric is also given which was calculated by weighting the hybrid propensity score by the number of intrageneric combinations for a given genus, to account for the greater opportunities of hybridization in larger genera.DNA barcodesDNA barcode sequences for plant species present in BI are currently available for 1,413 species in our database. The information was derived from a dataset of rbcL, matK and ITS2 sequences compiled for the UK flora generated by the National Botanic Garden of Wales and the Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh38,39 (pers. comm. L.J. and N.D.V.). The data are given as a hyperlink to the record’s page on the Barcode of Life Data Systems (BOLD40) which includes the DNA barcode sequences as well as scans of the herbarium specimen and information on the sample’s collection. Most species have multiple record pages associated with them, due to the sampling of more than one individual. We include a maximum of three BOLD accessions per species; the full range of individuals sampled can be accessed via the original publications38,39. DNA barcodes are almost exclusively available for native species. Future releases of our database will increase the coverage of the non-native flora significantly. Where species in the BOLD database are attributed to a species name that is considered synonymous with another name in our list, the hyperlink is matched to the latest nomenclature12. 1,421 species have at least one sequence associated with them and 935 species have sequence data for all three sequences (rbcL, matK and ITS2).Genome size and chromosome numbersGenome size data for 2,117 specimens (at least one measurement per species) were obtained from various sources. Measurements for a total of 467 species were newly estimated using plant material of known BI origin, often sourced  from the Millennium Seedbank of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew (RBG Kew)41. The measurements were made by flow cytometry using seeds or seedlings and following an established protocol42. Information on the extraction buffers and calibration standard species used are available in the file GS_Kew_BI.csv, along with peak CV values of the measurements as a quality control. Where more than one measurement is reported per species, the measurements were made on plant material from different populations or using different buffers. Previously published data for additional species were obtained from reports on the Czech flora43, the Dutch flora44, and prime values listed in the Plant DNA C-values database45,46. Since significant intraspecific differences in genome size between plant material from different geographical origins have previously been described, predominantly due to cytotype diversity in ploidy level47, genome size measurements from previously published sources were assessed with regard to the origin of the material. The column ‘from_BI_material’ (GS_BI.csv, BI_main.csv) allows users to filter for measurements made on material from BI to exclude a potential bias. The information was obtained from the original publication source of each measurement.Chromosome numbers for 1,410 species (at least one chromosome number per species) determined exclusively from material collected in BI were obtained from an extensive dataset compiled by R.J.G. from various published studies, unpublished theses and personal communications from trusted sources. The counts were made between 1898 and 2017, with a large proportion stemming from efforts to achieve greater coverage of the flora by a team of cytologists based at the University of Leicester and headed by R.J.G. Part of the dataset was previously incorporated into the BSBI’s data catalogue5 but has since undergone revisions to incorporate new information and changes in taxonomy. The dataset contained many measurements at subspecies level which were allocated to the species level taxon in our list. This served to include as much of the often considerable infraspecific variation as possible. Since some species for which chromosome counts have been reported elsewhere are lacking chromosome counts from British or Irish material, they are absent from this dataset. To fill such gaps, we also present chromosome numbers from reports on the Czech flora43, the Dutch flora44, and the Plant DNA C-values database45,46. More

1.Krebs, C. J. Ecological Methodology 2nd edn. (Addison Welsey Educational Publishers Inc, 1999).
Google Scholar 
2.Tewari, R. & Rawat, G. S. Studies on the food and feeding habits of Swamp Deer (Rucervus duvaucelii duvaucelii) in Jhilmil Jheel conservation reserve, Haridwar, Uttarakhand, India. ISRN Zool. 2013, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/278213 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
3.Brodeur, R. D., Smith, B. E., McBride, R. S., Heintz, R. & Farley, E. New perspectives on the feeding ecology and trophic dynamics of fishes. Environ. Biol. Fishes. 100, 293–297. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10641-017-0594-1 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
4.Vesey-FitzGerald, D. F. Grazing succession among East African game animals. J. Mammal. 41, 161–172. https://doi.org/10.2307/1376351 (1960).Article 

Google Scholar 
5.Lamprey, H. F. Ecological separation of the large mammal species in the Tarangire game reserve, Tanganyika. Afr. J. Ecol. 1, 63–92. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2028.1963.tb00179.x (1963).Article 

Google Scholar 
6.Ahrestani, F. S. Asian Eden Large Herbivore Ecology in India (Wageningen University, 2009).
Google Scholar 
7.Bell, R. H. V. The use of herb layer by grazing ungulates in the Serengeti. In Animal Populations in Relation to their Food Resources (eds. Watson, A.) 111–124 (Blackwell Science, 1970).8.Jarman, P. The social organisation of antelopes in relation to their ecology. Behaviour 48, 215–267. https://doi.org/10.1163/156853974X00345 (1974).Article 

Google Scholar 
9.Hofmann, R. R. & Stewart, D. R. M. Grazer of browser: A classification based on the stomach structure and feeding habits of East African ruminants. Mammalia 36, 226–240 (1972).Article 

Google Scholar 
10.Bell, R. H. V. A grazing ecosystem in the Serengeti. Sci. Am. 225, 86–93 (1971).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
11.Kleiber, M. The Fire of Life. An Introduction to Animal Energetics (Krieger, 1932).
Google Scholar 
12.Demment, M. W. & Van Soest, P. J. A nutritional explanation for body-size patterns of ruminant and nonruminant herbivores. Am. Nat. 125, 641–672. https://doi.org/10.1086/284369 (1985).Article 

Google Scholar 
13.Hofmann, R. R. The Ruminant Stomach: Stomach Structure and Feeding Habits of East African Game Ruminants. East African Monograph in Biology, vol. 2, 1–364 (E.A. Lit. Bureau, 1973).14.Ahrestani, F. S., Heitkönig, I. M., Matsubayashi, H. & Prins, H. H. Grazing and browsing by large herbivores in South and Southeast Asia. In The Ecology of Large Herbivores in South and Southeast Asia, (eds. Ahrestani, F. S. & Sankaran, M.) 99–120. (Springer, 2016).15.Geist, V. On the relationship of social evolution and ecology in Ungulates. Am. Zool. 14, 205–220. https://doi.org/10.1093/icb/14.1.205 (1974).Article 

Google Scholar 
16.Clauss, M., Steuer, P., Müller, D. W. H., Codron, D. & Hummel, J. Herbivory and body size: Allometries of diet quality and gastrointestinal physiology, and implications for herbivore ecology and dinosaur gigantism. PLoS One 8, e68714. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0068714 (2013).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
17.Ahrestani, F. S., Heitkönig, I. M. & Prins, H. H. Diet and habitat-niche relationships within an assemblage of large herbivores in a seasonal tropical forest. J. Trop. Ecol. 28, 385–394. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266467412000302 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
18.Pradhan, N. M., Wegge, P., Moe, S. R. & Shrestha, A. K. Feeding ecology of two endangered sympatric mega-herbivores: Asian elephant Elephas maximus and greater one-horned rhinoceros Rhinoceros unicornis in lowland Nepal. Wildl. Biol. 14, 147–154. https://doi.org/10.2981/0909-6396(2008)14[147:feotes]2.0.co;2 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
19.McNaughton, S. J. & Georgiadis, N. J. Ecology of African grazing and browsing mammals. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 17, 39–66. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.es.17.110186.000351 (1986).Article 

Google Scholar 
20.Owen-Smith, R. N. Adaptive Herbivore Ecology: From Resources to Populations in Variable Environments. Adaptive Herbivore Ecology (Cambridge University Press, 2002). https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511525605.21.Olff, H., Ritchie, M. E. & Prins, H. H. T. Global environmental controls of diversity in large herbivores. Nature 415, 901–904. https://doi.org/10.1038/415901a (2002).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
22.Bailey, D. W. & Provenza, F. D. Mechanisms determining large-herbivore distribution. In Resource Ecology, vol. 23 (eds. Prins, H. H. T. & Van Langevelde, F.) 7–28 (Springer, 2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6850-8_2.23.Prins, H. H. T. & Van Langevelde, F. Assembling a diet from different places. In Resource Ecology, vol. 23 (eds. Prins, H. H. T. & Van Langevelde, F.) 129–155 (Springer, 2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6850-8_12.24.Fryxell, J. M. et al. Landscape scale, heterogeneity, and the viability of Serengeti grazers. Ecol. Lett. 8, 328–335. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2005.00727.x (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
25.Du Toit, J., Rogers, K. & Biggs, H. The Kruger Experience: Ecology and Management of Savanna Heterogeneity, vol. 29 (Island Press, 2003).26.Ripple, W. J. et al. Collapse of the world’s largest herbivores. Sci. Adv. 1, e1400103. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1400103 (2015).ADS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
27.Menon, V. Indian Mammals: A Field Guide. (Hachette India, 2014).28.Reddy, C. S., Jha, C. S., Diwakar, P. G. & Dadhwal, V. K. Nationwide classification of forest types of India using remote sensing and GIS. Environ. Monit. Assess. 187, 777. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-015-4990-8 (2015).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
29.Wegge, P., Shrestha, A. K. & Moe, S. R. Dry season diets of sympatric ungulates in lowland Nepal: Competition and facilitation in alluvial tall grasslands. Ecol. Res. 21, 698–706. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11284-006-0177-7 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
30.WWF. Living Planet: Report 2016. Risk and Resilience in a New Era. (World Wide Fund for Nature International, 2016).31.Gebremedhin, B. et al. DNA metabarcoding reveals diet overlap between the endangered walia ibex and domestic goats: Implications for conservation. PLoS One 11, e0159133. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0159133 (2016).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
32.Spooner, F. E., Pearson, R. G. & Freeman, R. Rapid warming is associated with population decline among terrestrial birds and mammals globally. Glob. Change Biol. 24, 4521–4531. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14361 (2018).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
33.Texeira, M., Baldi, G. & Paruelo, J. An exploration of direct and indirect drivers of herbivore reproductive performance in arid and semi-arid rangelands by means of structural equation models. J. Arid Environ. 81, 26–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaridenv.2012.01.017 (2012).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
34.Kupika, O. L., Gandiwa, E., Kativu, S. & Nhamo, G. Impacts of climate change and climate variability on wildlife resources in southern Africa: Experience from selected protected areas in Zimbabwe. In Selected Studies in Biodiversity, (eds. Şen, B. & Grillo, O.) 1–23 (IntechOpen, 2018). https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.70470.35.Joyce, C. B., Simpson, M. & Casanova, M. Future wet grasslands: Ecological implications of climate change. Ecosyst. Health Sustain. 2, e01240. https://doi.org/10.1002/ehs2.1240 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
36.Vasu, N. K., & Singh, G. Grasslands of Kaziranga National Park: Problems and approaches for management. In Ecology and Management of Grassland Habitats in India, vol. 17 (eds. Rawat, G. S., Adhikari, B. S.) 104–113 (Wildlife Institute of India, 2015).37.Dublin, H. T. Vegetation dynamics in the Serengeti-Mara ecosystem: The role of elephants, fire, and other factors. In Serengeti II: Dynamics, Management, and Conservation of an Ecosystem, (eds. Sinclair, A. R. E. & Arcese, P.) 71–90 (University of Chicago Press, 1995).38.Sinclair, A. R. E. Equilibria in plant–herbivore interactions. In Serengeti II: Dynamics, Management, and Conservation of an Ecosystem, (eds. Sinclair, A. R. E. & Arcese, P.) 91–113 (University of Chicago Press, 1995).39.Augustine, D. J. & McNaughton, S. J. Ungulate effects on the functional species composition of plant communities: Herbivore selectivity and plant tolerance. J. Wildl. Manag. 62, 1165. https://doi.org/10.2307/3801981 (1998).Article 

Google Scholar 
40.Schmitt, M. H. & Shrader, A. M. Browser population-woody vegetation relationships in Savannas. In Savanna Woody Plants and Large Herbivores (eds. Scogings, F. P. & Sankaran, M.) 245–278 (Wiley, 2020). https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119081111.ch9.41.Konwar, P., Saikia, M. K. & Saikia, P. K. Abundance of food plant species and food habits of Rhinoceros unicornis Linn. in Pobitora Wildlife Sanctuary, Assam, India. J. Threat. Taxa. 1, 457–460. https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.o1640.457-60 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
42.Bhatta, R. Ecology and Conservation of Great Indian One-horned Rhino (Rhinoceros unicornis) in Pobitora Wildlife Sanctuary, Assam, India (Gauhati University, 2011).
Google Scholar 
43.Hazarika, B. C. & Saikia, P. K. Food habit and feeding patterns of great indian one-horned rhinoceros (Rhinoceros unicornis) in Rajiv Gandhi Orang National Park, Assam, India. ISRN Zool. 2012, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.5402/2012/259695 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
44.Dutta, D. K., Bora, P. J., Mahanta, R., Sharma, A. & Swargowari, A. Seasonal variations in food plant preferences of reintroduced Rhinos Rhinoceros unicornis (Mammalia: Perrissodactyla: Rhinocerotidae) in Manas National Park, Assam, India. J. Threat. Taxa. 8, 9525–9536. https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.2486.8.13.9525-9536 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
45.Brahmachary, R. L., Rakshit, B. & Mallik, B. Further attempts to determine the food habits of the Indian Rhinoceros at Kaziranga. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 71, 295–299 (1974).
Google Scholar 
46.Banerjee, G. Habitat Use by the Great Indian Rhinoceros (Rhinoceros Unicornis) and Other Sympatric Large Herbivores in Kaziranga National Park, Assam, India (Wildlife Institute of India, 2001).
Google Scholar 
47.Patar, K. C. Behavioural Patterns of the One Horned Indian Rhinoceros (Spectrum Publication Guwahati, 2005).
Google Scholar 
48.Bawri, M. & Saikia, P. K. Preliminary study on the food plant species of Endangered Asiatic wild water buffalo Bubalus arnee Kerr in Kaziranga National Park, Assam India. NeBIO. 5, 49–55 (2014).
Google Scholar 
49.Sukumar, R. Ecology of the Asian elephant in southern India. I. Movement and habitat utilization patterns. J. Trop. Ecol. 5, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266467400003175 (1989).Article 

Google Scholar 
50.Schaller, G. B. The Deer and the Tiger. A Study of Wildlife in India, (University of Chicago Press, 1967). https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226736570.001.0001.51.Dhungel, S. K. & O’Gara, B. W. Ecology of the Hog Deer in Royal Chitwan National Park, Nepal. Wildl. Monogr. 119, 3–40. https://doi.org/10.2307/3830632 (1991).Article 

Google Scholar 
52.Johnsingh, A. J. T. & Manjrekar, N. Mammals of South Asia, 2 (Universities Press, 2016).
Google Scholar 
53.Sukumar, R. Ecology of the Asian elephant in southern India. II. Feeding habits and crop raiding patterns. J. Trop. Ecol. 6, 33–53. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266467400004004 (1990).Article 

Google Scholar 
54.Baskaran, N., Balasubramanian, M., Swaminathan, S. & Desai, A. A. Feeding ecology of the Asian elephant Elephas maximus Linnaeus in the Nilgiri Biosphere Reserve, southern India. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 107, 3–13 (2010).
Google Scholar 
55.Tuboi, C. & Hussain, S. A. Factors affecting forage selection by the endangered Eld’s deer and hog deer in the floating meadows of Barak-Chindwin Basin of North-east India. Mamm. Biol. 81, 53–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mambio.2014.10.006 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
56.Kelton, S. D. & Skipworth, J. P. Food of sambar deer (Cervus unicolor) in a Manawatu (New Zealand) flax swamp. N. Z. J. Ecol. 10, 149–152 (1987).
Google Scholar 
57.Semiadi, G., Barry, T. N., Muir, P. D. & Hodgson, J. Dietary preferences of sambar (Cervus unicolor) and red deer (Cervus elaphus) offered browse, forage legume and grass species. J. Agric. Sci. 125, 99–107. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021859600074554 (1995).Article 

Google Scholar 
58.Johnsingh, A. J. T. & Sankar, K. Food plants of chital, sambar and cattle on Mundanthurai Plateau, Tamil Nadu, south India. Mammalia 55, 57–66. https://doi.org/10.1515/mamm.1991.55.1.57 (1991).Article 

Google Scholar 
59.Steinheim, G., Wegge, P., Fjellstad, J. I., Jnawali, S. R. & Weladji, R. B. Dry season diets and habitat use of sympatric Asian elephants (Elephas maximus) and greater one-horned rhinoceros (Rhinocerus unicornis) in Nepal. J. Zool. 265, 377–385. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0952836905006448 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
60.Bakker, E. S., Ritchie, M. E., Olff, H., Milchunas, D. G. & Knops, J. M. H. Herbivore impact on grassland plant diversity depends on habitat productivity and herbivore size. Ecol. Lett. 9, 780–788. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2006.00925.x (2006).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
61.Edwards, G. R. & Crawley, M. J. Herbivores, seed banks and seedling recruitment in mesic grassland. J. Ecol. 87, 423–435. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2745.1999.00363.x (1999).Article 

Google Scholar 
62.Marquis, R. J. The role of herbivores in terrestrial trophic cascades. In: Trophic Cascades: Predators, Prey and the Changing Dynamics of Nature, (eds. Terborgh, J. & Estes, J. A.) 109–123, (Island Press, 2010).63.Parikh, G. L. et al. The influence of plant defensive chemicals, diet composition, and winter severity on the nutritional condition of a free-ranging, generalist herbivore. Oikos 126, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/oik.03359 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
64.Yadava, M. K. Kaziranga National Park: Detailed Report on Issues and Possible Solutions of Long-Term Protection of the Greater One-horned Rhinoceros in Kaziranga National Park Pursuant to the Order of the Hon’ble Guwahati High Court. 1–402 (Government of Assam, India, 2014).65.Champion, H. G. & Seth, S. K. A Revised Survey of the Forest Types of India (Govt. of India Press, 1968).
Google Scholar 
66.Sharma, G. Studies on the mammalian diversity of Kaziranga National Park, Assam, India with their conservation status. J. New Biol. Rep. 7, 15–19 (2018).CAS 

Google Scholar 
67.Shrestha, R., Wegge, P. & Koirala, R. A. Summer diets of wild and domestic ungulates in Nepal Himalaya. J. Zool. 266, 111–119. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0952836905006527 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
68.Sparks, D. R. & Malechek, J. C. Estimating percentage dry weight in diets using a microscopic technique. J. Range Manag. 21, 264–265. https://doi.org/10.2307/3895829 (1968).Article 

Google Scholar 
69.Satkopan, S. Key to identification of plant remains in animal dropping. J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 69, 139–150 (1972).
Google Scholar 
70.Johnson, M. K., Wofford, H. H. & Pearson, H. A. Microhistological Techniques for Food Habits Analyses (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1983).Book 

Google Scholar 
71.Jain, S. K. & Hajra, P. K. On the botany of Manas Wild Life Sanctuary in Assam. Bull. Bot. Surv. Ind. 17, 75–86 (1975).
Google Scholar 
72.Hajra, P. K. & Jain, S. K. Botany of Kaziranga and Manas (Surya International Publications, 1994).
Google Scholar 
73.Rahmani, A. R., Kasambe, R., Prabhu, S., Khot, R. & Bajaru, S. Biodiversity Studies at Kaziranga National Park. (2016).74.Vila, A. R., Galende, G. I. & Pastore, H. Feeding ecology of the endangered huemul (Hippocamelus bisulcus) in Los Alerces National Park, Argentina. Mastozool. Neotrop. 16, 423–431 (2009).
Google Scholar 
75.Borah, S. B., Sivasankar, T., Ramya, M. N. S. & Raju, P. L. N. Flood inundation mapping and monitoring in Kaziranga National Park, Assam using Sentinel-1 SAR data. Environ. Monit. Assess. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-018-6893-y (2018).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
76.De Barba, M. et al. Comparing opportunistic and systematic sampling methods for non-invasive genetic monitoring of a small translocated brown bear population. J. Appl. Ecol. 47, 172–181. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2009.01752 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
77.Jachmann, H. & Bell, R. H. V. The use of elephant droppings in assessing numbers, occupance and age structure: A refinement of the method. Afr. J. Ecol. 22, 127–141. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2028.1984.tb00686.x (1984).Article 

Google Scholar 
78.Chaturvedi, R. K. & Sankar, K. Laboratory Manual for the Physico-Chemical Analysis of Soil, Water and Plant (Wildlife Institute of India, 2006).
Google Scholar 
79.Colwell, R. K. & Elsensohn, J. E. EstimateS turns 20: Statistical estimation of species richness and shared species from samples, with non-parametric extrapolation. Ecography 37, 609–613. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecog.00814 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
80.Colwell, R. K. et al. Models and estimators linking individual-based and sample-based rarefaction, extrapolation and comparison of assemblages. J. Plant Ecol. 5, 3–21. https://doi.org/10.1093/jpe/rtr044 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
81.Dormann, C. F., Gruber, B. & Fründ, J. Introducing the bipartite package: Analysing ecological networks. R News 8, 8–11 (2008).
Google Scholar 
82.Barton, K. & Barton, M. K. Package ‘MuMIn’. R package version, 1 (2019).83.Harrell Jr, F. E. & Harrell Jr, M. F. E. Package ‘Hmisc’. CRAN2018, 2019, 235–236 (2019).84.Wei, T. et al. Package ‘corrplot’: Visualization of a correlation matrix. Statistician 56, 316–324 (2017).
Google Scholar  More

1.Galloway, J. N. et al. Trace metals in atmospheric deposition: A review and assessment. Atmos. Environ. 16, 1677–1700 (1982).CAS 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
2.Dodds, W. K., Perkin, J. S. & Gerken, J. E. Human impact on freshwater ecosystem services: A global perspective. Environ. Sci. Technol. 47, 9061–9068 (2013).CAS 
PubMed 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
3.Rigosi, A., Carey, C. C., Ibelings, B. W. & Brookes, J. D. The interaction between climate warming and eutrophication to promote cyanobacteria is dependent on trophic state and varies among taxa. Limnol. Oceanogr. 59, 99–114 (2014).ADS 

Google Scholar 
4.Dokulil, M. T. & Teubner, K. Eutrophication and climate change: Present situation and future scenarios. In Eutrophication: Causes, Consequences and Control (eds Ansari, A. A. et al.) 1–16 (Springer, 2011).
Google Scholar 
5.Codd, G. A., Lindsay, J., Young, F. M., Morrison, L. F. & Metcalf, J. S. Harmful Cyanobacteria (Springer, 2005).
Google Scholar 
6.Harland, F. M. J., Wood, S. A., Moltchanova, E., Williamson, W. M. & Gaw, S. Phormidium autumnale growth and anatoxin-a production under iron and copper stress. Toxins (Basel). 5, 2504–2521 (2013).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
7.Zurawell, R. W., Chen, H., Burke, J. M. & Prepas, E. E. Hepatotoxic cyanobacteria: A review of the biological importance of microcystins in freshwater environments. J. Toxicol. Environ. Health B 8, 1–37 (2005).CAS 

Google Scholar 
8.Funari, E. & Testai, E. Human health risk assessment related to cyanotoxins exposure. Crit. Rev. Toxicol. 38, 97–125 (2008).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
9.Brooks, B. W. et al. Are harmful algal blooms becoming the greatest inland water quality threat to public health and aquatic ecosystems?. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 35, 6–13 (2016).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
10.Pick, F. R. & Lean, D. R. S. The role of macronutrients (C, N, P) in controlling cyanobacterial dominance in temperate lakes. N. Z. J. Mar. Freshw. Res. 21, 425–434 (1987).CAS 

Google Scholar 
11.Schindler, A. D. W. Evolution of phosphorus limitation in lakes. Science 195, 260–262 (1977).CAS 
PubMed 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
12.Kumar, K., Mella-Herrera, R. A. & Golden, J. W. Cyanobacterial heterocysts. Cold Spring Harb. Perspect. Biol. 2, 1–20 (2010).
Google Scholar 
13.Paerl, H. W., Fulton, R. S., Moisander, P. H. & Dyble, J. Harmful freshwater algal blooms, with an emphasis on cyanobacteria. Sci. World J. 1, 76–113 (2001).CAS 

Google Scholar 
14.Paerl, H. W., Hall, N. S. & Calandrino, E. S. Controlling harmful cyanobacterial blooms in a world experiencing anthropogenic and climatic-induced change. Sci. Total Environ. 409, 1739–1745 (2011).CAS 
PubMed 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
15.Higgins, S. N. et al. Biological nitrogen fixation prevents the response of a eutrophic lake to reduced loading of nitrogen: Evidence from a 46-year whole-lake experiment. Ecosystems 21, 1088–1100 (2018).CAS 

Google Scholar 
16.Dolman, A. M. et al. Cyanobacteria and cyanotoxins: The influence of nitrogen versus phosphorus. PLoS ONE 7, e38757 (2012).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
17.Schoffman, H., Lis, H., Shaked, Y. & Keren, N. Iron-nutrient interactions within phytoplankton. Front. Plant Sci. 7, 1223 (2016).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
18.Needoba, J. A., Foster, R. A., Sakamoto, C., Zehr, J. P. & Johnson, K. S. Nitrogen fixation by unicellular diazotrophic cyanobacteria in the temperate oligotrophic North Pacific Ocean. Limnol. Oceanogr. 52, 1317–1327 (2007).CAS 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
19.Romero, I. C., Klein, N. J., Sañudo-Wilhelmy, S. A. & Capone, D. G. Potential trace metal co-limitation controls on N2 fixation and NO3- uptake in lakes with varying trophic status. Front. Microbiol. 4, 1–12 (2013).CAS 

Google Scholar 
20.Newton, W. E. Physiology, biochemistry, and molecular biology of nitrogen fixation. In Biology of the Nitrogen Cycle 109–129 (Elsevier B. V, 2007).
Google Scholar 
21.Salama, Z. A., El-Fouly, M. M., Lazova, G. & Popova, L. P. Carboxylating enzymes and carbonic anhydrase functions were suppressed by zinc deficiency in maize and chickpea plants. Acta Physiol. Plant. 28, 445–451 (2006).CAS 

Google Scholar 
22.Sültemeyer, D. Carbonic anhydrase in eukaryotic algae: Characterization, regulation, and possible function during photosynthesis. Can. J. Bot. 76, 962–972 (1998).
Google Scholar 
23.Vallee, B. L. & Auld, D. S. Zinc coordination, function, and structure of zinc enzymes and other proteins. Biochemistry 29, 5647–5659 (1990).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
24.Wu, F. Y. & Wu, C. W. Zinc in DNA replication and transcription. Annu. Rev. Nutr. 7, 251–272 (1987).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
25.Beyer, W., Imlay, J. & Fridovich, I. Superoxide dismutases. Prog. Nucleic Acid Res. Mol. Biol. 40, 221–253 (1991).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
26.Holm-Hansen, O., Gerloff, G. H. & Skogg, F. Cobalt as an essential element for blue-green algae. Physiol. Plant. 7, 665–675 (1954).CAS 

Google Scholar 
27.Sunda, W. G. & Huntsman, S. A. Cobalt and zinc interreplacement in marine phytoplankton: Biological and geochemical implications. Limnol. Oceanogr. 40, 1404–1417 (1995).CAS 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
28.Steffens, G. C. M., Biewald, R. & Buse, G. Cytochrome c oxidase is three-copper, two-heme-A protein. Eur. J. Biochem. 164, 295–300 (1987).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
29.Price, R. C., Mortimer, N., Smith, I. E. M. & Maas, R. Whole-rock geochemical reference data for Torlesse and Waipapa terranes, North Island, New Zealand. N. Z. J. Geol. Geophys. 58, 213–228 (2015).CAS 

Google Scholar 
30.Downs, T. M., Schallenberg, M. & Burns, C. W. Responses of lake phytoplankton to micronutrient enrichment: A study in two New Zealand lakes and an analysis of published data. Aquat. Sci. 70, 347–360 (2008).CAS 

Google Scholar 
31.Bayer, T. K., Schallenberg, M. & Martin, C. E. Investigation of nutrient limitation status and nutrient pathways in Lake Hayes, Otago, New Zealand: A case study for integrated lake assessment. N. Z. J. Mar. Freshw. Res. 42, 285–295 (2008).CAS 

Google Scholar 
32.Glass, J. B., Axler, R. P., Chandra, S. & Goldman, C. R. Molybdenum limitation of microbial nitrogen assimilation in aquatic ecosystems and pure cultures. Front. Microbiol. 3, 1–11 (2012).
Google Scholar 
33.Sterner, R. W. et al. Phosphorus and trace metal limitation of algae and bacteria in Lake Superior. Limnol. Oceanogr. 49, 495–507 (2004).CAS 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
34.Vrede, T. & Tranvik, L. J. Iron constraints on planktonic primary production in oligotrophic lakes. Ecosystems 9, 1094–1105 (2006).CAS 

Google Scholar 
35.North, R. L., Guildford, S. J., Smith, R. E. H., Havens, S. M. & Twiss, M. R. Evidence for phosphorus, nitrogen, and iron colimitation of phytoplankton communities in Lake Erie. Limnol. Oceanogr. 52, 315–328 (2007).CAS 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
36.Kelly, L. T. et al. Trace metal and nitrogen concentrations differentially affect bloom forming cyanobacteria of the genus Dolichospermum. Aquat. Sci. 83, 1–11 (2021).
Google Scholar 
37.Sorichetti, R. J., Creed, I. F. & Trick, C. G. Iron and iron-binding ligands as cofactors that limit cyanobacterial biomass across a lake trophic gradient. Freshw. Biol. 61, 146–157 (2016).CAS 

Google Scholar 
38.Wood, S. A. et al. Contrasting cyanobacterial communities and microcystin concentrations in summers with extreme weather events: Insights into potential effects of climate change. Hydrobiologia 785, 71–89 (2017).CAS 

Google Scholar 
39.Li, X., Dreher, T. W. & Li, R. An overview of diversity, occurrence, genetics and toxin production of bloom-forming Dolichospermum (Anabaena) species. Harmful Algae 54, 54–68 (2016).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
40.Hawes, I. & Smith, R. Seasonal dynamics of epilithic periphyton in oligotrophic lake Taupo, New Zealand. N. Z. J. Mar. Freshw. Res. 28, 1–12 (1994).
Google Scholar 
41.Verburg, P. & Albert, A. Taupo Long Term Monitoring (Springer, 2018).
Google Scholar 
42.Marañón, E. Cell Size as a key determinant of phytoplankton metabolism and community structure. Ann. Rev. Mar. Sci. 7, 241–264 (2015).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
43.Kagami, M. & Urabe, J. Phytoplankton growth rate as a function of cell size: An experimental test in Lake Biwa. Limnology 2, 111–117 (2001).
Google Scholar 
44.Kraemer, S. M., Duckworth, O. W., Harrington, J. M. & Schenkeveld, W. D. C. Metallophores and trace metal biogeochemistry. Aquat. Geochem. 21, 159–195 (2015).CAS 

Google Scholar 
45.Twiss, M. R., Auclair, J.-C. & Charlton, M. N. An investigation into iron-stimulated phytoplankton productivity in epipelagic Lake Erie during thermal stratification using trace metal clean techniques. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 57, 86–95 (2000).CAS 

Google Scholar 
46.Feng, Y., Fu, F. & Hutchins, D. A. Trace metal clean culture techniques. Res. Methods Environ. Physiol. Aquat. Sci. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-5354-7_36 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
47.Rhodes, L. et al. The Cawthron institute culture collection of micro-algae: A significant national collection. N. Z. J. Mar. Freshw. Res. 50, 291–316 (2016).
Google Scholar 
48.Bolch, C. J. S. & Blackburn, S. I. Isolation and purification of Australian isolates of the toxic cyanobacterium Microcystis aeruginosa Kütz. J. Appl. Phycol. 8, 5–13 (1996).
Google Scholar 
49.Worms, I., Simon, D. F., Hassler, C. S. & Wilkinson, K. J. Bioavailability of trace metals to aquatic microorganisms: Importance of chemical, biological and physical processes on biouptake. Biochimie 88, 1721–1731 (2006).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
50.Gobler, C. J., Hutchins, D. A., Fisher, N. S., Cosper, E. M. & Sañudo-Wilhelmy, S. A. Release and bioavailability of C, N, P, Se, and Fe following viral lysis of a marine chrysophyte. Limnol. Oceanogr. 42, 1492–1504 (1997).CAS 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
51.Bell, W. & Mitchell, R. Chemotactic and growth responses of marine bacteria to algal extracellular products. Biol. Bull. 143, 265–277 (1972).
Google Scholar 
52.Seymour, J. R., Amin, S. A., Raina, J. B. & Stocker, R. Zooming in on the phycosphere: The ecological interface for phytoplankton-bacteria relationships. Nat. Microbiol. 2, 65 (2017).
Google Scholar 
53.Helliwell, K. E. et al. Cyanobacteria and eukaryotic algae use different chemical variants of Vitamin B12. Curr. Biol. 26, 999–1008 (2016).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
54.Anderson, M. A. & Morel, F. M. M. The influence of aqueous iron chemistry on the uptake of iron by the coastal diatom Thallasiosira weissflogii. Limnol. Oceanogr. 27, 789–813 (1982).CAS 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
55.Lis, H., Kranzler, C., Keren, N. & Shaked, Y. A comparative study of Iron uptake rates and mechanisms amongst marine and fresh water Cyanobacteria: Prevalence of reductive Iron uptake. Life 5, 841–860 (2015).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
56.Bruland, K. W., Knauer, G. A. & Martin, J. H. Zinc in north-east Pacific water. Nature 271, 741–743 (1978).CAS 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
57.Saeed, H. et al. Regulation of phosphorus bioavailability by iron nanoparticles in a monomictic lake. Sci. Rep. 8, 1–14 (2018).
Google Scholar 
58.Baken, S., Degryse, F., Verheyen, L., Merckx, R. & Smolders, E. Metal complexation properties of freshwater dissolved organic matter are explained by its aromaticity and by anthropogenic ligands. Environ. Sci. Technol. 45, 2584–2590 (2011).CAS 
PubMed 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
59.Campbell, P. G. C. Interactions between trace metals and aquatic organisms: A critique of the free-ion activity model. In Metal Speciation and Bioavailability in Aquatic Systems (eds Tessier, A. & Turner, D. R.) 45–102 (Wiley, 1995).
Google Scholar 
60.Scharek, R., Van Leeuwe, M. A. & De Baar, H. J. W. Responses of Southern Ocean phytoplankton to the addition of trace metals. Deep. Res. Part II 44, 209–227 (1997).CAS 

Google Scholar 
61.Facey, J. A., Apte, S. C. & Mitrovic, S. M. A review of the effect of trace metals on freshwater cyanobacterial growth and toxin production. Toxins (Basel). 11, 1–18 (2019).
Google Scholar 
62.Zhang, X. et al. Effect of micronutrients on algae in different regions of Taihu, a large, spatially diverse, hypereutrophic lake. Water Res. 151, 500–514 (2019).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
63.Wever, A. D. et al. Differential response of phytoplankton to additions of nitrogen, phosphorus and iron in Lake Tanganyika. Freshw. Biol. 53, 264–277 (2008).
Google Scholar 
64.Nalewajko, C. & Murphy, T. P. Effects of temperature, and availability of nitrogen and phosphorus on the abundance of Anabaena and Microcystis in Lake Biwa, Japan: An experimental approach. Limnology 2, 45–48 (2001).
Google Scholar 
65.Kagami, M., Gurung, T. B., Yoshida, T. & Urabe, J. To sink or to be lysed? Contrasting fate of two large phytoplankton species in Lake Biwa. Limnol. Oceanogr. 51, 2775–2786 (2006).ADS 

Google Scholar 
66.Hartig, J. H. & Wallen, D. G. The influence of light and temperature on growth and photosynthesis of fragilaria crotonensis kitton. J. Freshw. Ecol. 3, 371–382 (1986).
Google Scholar 
67.Tilman, D. Tests of resource competition theory using four species of Lake Michigan algae. Ecology 62, 802–815 (1981).
Google Scholar 
68.Tompkins, T. & Blinn, D. W. The effect of mercury on the growth rate of Fragilaria crotonensis kitton and Asterionella formosa Hass. Hydrobiologia 49, 111–116 (1976).CAS 

Google Scholar 
69.Kazamia, E. et al. Endocytosis-mediated siderophore uptake as a strategy for Fe acquisition in diatoms. Sci. Adv. 4, aar4536 (2018).ADS 

Google Scholar 
70.Strzepek, R. F. & Harrison, P. J. Photosynthetic architecture differs in coastal and oceanic diatoms. Nature 431, 689–692 (2004).CAS 
PubMed 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
71.Strzepek, R. F., Boyd, P. W. & Sunda, W. G. Photosynthetic adaptation to low iron, light, and temperature in Southern Ocean phytoplankton. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 116, 4388–4393 (2019).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
ADS 

Google Scholar 
72.Raven, J. A. The iron and molybdenum use efficiencies of plant growth with different energy, carbon and nitrogen sources. New Phytol. 109, 279–287 (1988).CAS 

Google Scholar 
73.Kranzler, C., Rudolf, M., Keren, N. & Schleiff, E. Iron in cyanobacteria. Adv. Bot. Res. 65, 57–105 (2013).CAS 

Google Scholar  More

Characterization of farm typesThe principal component analysis (PCA) resulted in extraction of the first three principal components (PCs) based on eigen-value criterion (eigen-value  > 1) (Fig. 2A) explaining about 87% of the variability in surveyed farm households (Fig. 2B). The first principal component (PC 1) explained the greatest part of the variation, about 43.1% of the variability in surveyed farm households. PC 1 was more closely related to the variables describing the use of farm machinery, land area foodgrain, and income foodgrain. (Fig. 1A and Fig. 2C). The second principal component (PC 2) explained 27.1% of the variability in surveyed farm households and was strongly associated with land area fruit and vegetable, income fruit and vegetable, income on-farm, expense all farm enterprises (Fig. 1A and Fig. 2C). The third principal component (PC 3) explained 16.8% of the variability in surveyed farm households and described land area fodder, income fodder (Fig. 1B and Fig. 2C). Thus, the first three principal components explained the use of farm machinery, land use, income, and expense of farm households, giving insight into the production objective of households. The results from hierarchical clustering suggested a four-cluster cutoff point (Fig. 3A and Fig. 3B) and the non-hierarchical clustering assigned households to identified clusters (Fig. 1C and Fig. 1D). Thus households of the study area could be grouped into four farm types contrasted by their structural characteristics that describe resource endowment and functional characteristics that describe livelihood strategies. Traditionally, farm households were divided into four categories based on the size of their land holdings: marginal, small, medium, and large farmer19. The typologies created in this study are based on the possession of resources such as crops and animals, as well as decisions made by them regarding crop and livestock rearing. Based on structural factors, cropping system, livestock owned, source of income, and differences among different farm households, our study divided the farm households into four farm types. The similar type of categorization was done for smallholder’s farms in Indo‑Gangetic Plains of India20.Farm type-1. Resource constraint households with low farm income (n = 93, 46.5%): Farm type-1 was the largest cluster of sampled farm households, distinguishable from other farm types by smallest land owned by household (Table 1). The cropping system dominated by plantation crop, had fruits and vegetables. Nearly half of fruits and vegetables as sole crops and the rest are intercropped in coconut. The livestock system exhibited a low abundance of large ruminant and a high abundance of poultry, average ownership was limited to the isolated presence of cattle and 25 poultry. Egg production was highest among farm types. On-farm income were the lowest among farm types. Crop produce sales were the main source of on-farm income 76%, complemented by income from livestock 24%. Furthermore, the production cost of ₹69,000 was the lowest among farm types. Due to variables such as fluctuating commodity prices, labour shortages during peak agriculture season, farmers’ concentration shifted to adoption of few enterprises as a result of land fragmentation and economic liberalization in the 1990s21,22. These variables have had a significant impact on resource constraint farm types.Farm type-2. Resource endowed diversified households with high farm income (n = 25, 12.5%): Farm type-2 exhibited the smallest cluster of sampled farm households, mostly dominated by fruit and vegetable, plantation crop (Table 1). Nearly one-fourth of fruit and vegetable as the sole crop and the rest are intercropped in coconut in upland. Complementary and supplementary enterprises viz. apiculture, pisciculture, nutritional kitchen garden, agro-processing, and value addition generated income ₹5,010 which was substantially high in this cluster. Livestock production centered around a moderate abundance of large ruminant and moderate abundance of poultry, average ownership of 1 cattle and 17 poultry. This cluster had the highest on-farm income ₹1,25,600 among farm types. Crop produce sales provided 63% of on-farm income, complemented by income from livestock 33%. Moreover, the production cost of ₹2,02,000 was relatively high among farm types. These farm households adapted crop diversification. Diversification is a method for making better use of land, water, and other resources by growing more profitable crops. It allows farmers to choose which crops to grow on their farm in order to maximize returns, and most farmers grow multiple crops to reduce risk and uncertainty caused by climatic and biological fluctuations23. Diversification refers to switching from less profitable and non-sustainable crops to more profitable and long-term crops. It has emerged as a viable option for ensuring natural resource sustainability, ecological balance, job creation, and risk generation24.Farm type-3. Resource endowed mechanized households with low farm income (n = 43, 21.5%): Farm type-3 comprised of sampled farm households distinguishable from other farm types by the largest cropped area under foodgrain (Table 1). The foodgrain area dedicated to rice cultivation was located mostly in wetland, while the plantation crop area largely established with coconut was on paddy field bunds and in the garden land. Livestock production centered around a moderate abundance of large ruminant and low abundance of poultry, average ownership of 1 cattle and 5 poultry. This cluster had an on-farm income of ₹63,300, the main source being crop produce sales 58%, complemented by income from livestock 42%. Besides, the production cost of ₹1,79,000 was relatively high among farm types. In these farm households the farm mechanization has brought significant change in the livelihood. Especially, paddy field preparation through puddling, mechanical transplantation, and paddy combine harvester reduced the greater dependence of external labourers. The relative shortage of agricultural workers, and the comparatively high wage rate in agriculture has bought small and large scale mechanization in Kerala agricultural system21.Farm type-4. Resource endowed medium farm income households with livestock dominance (n = 39, 19.5%): A main distinguishing feature of sampled farm households in farm type-4 was the largest fodder area among farm types, established mostly in coconut garden (Table 1). A considerable number of households had a foodgrain area of in wetland, mainly dedicated to rice cultivation. The livestock system exhibited a high abundance of large ruminant and low abundance of poultry, comprised mostly of milch animal, average ownership of 2 cattle and 2 poultry. Milk production 3.84 × 103 L/year was the highest among farm types. On-farm income was ₹84,100. The main income source was livestock which constituted 65% of on-farm income, complemented by income from crop produces 35%. Production cost ₹1,54,000 was relatively high among farm types. These farmers adapted livestock has their source of livelihood and alternate means of employment especially farm women’s. The major benefit of livestock components like cattle and poultry is that they provide regular income to sustain farm family and also they provide nutritional security. Crossbred cattle adoption and crossbred milk output are important factors in increasing livestock revenue. To increase income from animal sources, a crossbreeding strategy should be implemented25.Farming system patternsDistinguishing characteristics of a farming system are highly location-specific, depend on adaptive strategies devised by farmers to cope with the adverse situations as well as take advantage of the potential opportunities for intensification and diversification of agriculture at the household level. Studies have shown that farmers come up with strategies to get along with adverse situations viz. volatile price, crop failure, flood, drought, declining soil fertility, land scarcity, climate change and also make use of potential opportunities viz. use of new technologies, value addition, which allowed for sustainable production and income10,26,27,28. These distinguishing characteristics of a farming system are discussed in relation to clustering variables grouped according to the theme, their interrelationships, and the identified farm types in the following sections.Farm household: The basic unit of social organization is the farm household where the head, typically a male lives with his nuclear family most often in a concrete roofed house. Farm households residing in traditional clay tile-roofed houses are also found occasionally. Farm households had an average size of four members (Table 1). Households were headed by the oldest male member aged 60 years. Both household size and age of household head remained unchanged across farm types. Land owned by households 0.42 ha is typically inherited (Table 1). Purchase is the less common access route to land ownership. Land owned by a household is commonly taken as a proxy for the wealth of a household as it correlates positively with livestock assets and crop production29. Results revealed variation in land owned by households across farm types with the smallest land 0.34 ha owned by the resource-constrained type-1 household. Interestingly, type-1 farmers accounted for a major proportion (46.5%) of farm households surveyed. The traditional practice of land owned by households typically fragmented into smaller parcels that are allocated to children at the time of their marriage, favors an increase in the number of small farm holdings. Eventually, the married children who had started in a household, leave the household with one’s spouse and consequently their children to build their own house and live separately in their inherited land, thus forming a new household. Small land holdings characterize Kerala agriculture. The core cause of poverty in Kerala is the tremendous fragmentation of agricultural land, and the fact that this fragmentation is only getting worse and is becoming a unique development issue. This current state of significant fragmentation, highlight the massive increase in the number of marginal farms as the area covered by large farms decreases30.Labour: A combination of family and hired wage labour was used for agricultural production in the study area. Family labour is comprised of individuals in a household who are related by blood and kinship. With all households having only one family member working on-farm on a full-time basis and the average household size being only four members, family labour availability is less (Table 1). Household size is commonly taken as a proxy for family labour availability thereby requiring the hiring of wage labour to deal with family labour shortage 11. Shortage of family labour is further exacerbated by one member in each household across farm types working non-farm on a full-time basis, either making a livelihood from overseas, running small businesses, or earning a salary from the service sector. The study area is located on the outskirts of the state capital, the educated youth in farm households have ample employment opportunities in the secondary sector namely construction, and in the tertiary sector namely health service, transportation, education, entertainment, tourism, finance, sales, and retail. Wage labourers were hence hired on a seasonal basis for labour-intensive activities such as land preparation, planting, and harvesting. The local wage rate for farm laborers in the study area were ₹650 and ₹600 per man-day for men and women respectively, which were the highest in the nation. For farmers and labourers, agriculture is not a reliable source of revenue and employment. Kerala’s labour distribution has shifted in favor of the non-agricultural sector, especially the service sector. Kerala has seen a significant increase in non-agricultural employment in both rural and urban areas, resulting in a shift in the workforce’s industrial distribution. The structure of rural employment in Kerala has transitioned from agricultural to non-agricultural enterprises as a result of these changes. The specialized agriculture practices and mono-cropping increased production cost, risk of crop failure, and lower market price31. Due to this, the small and marginal farmers migrated to neighboring cities in search of jobs and livelihood. In this scenario, IFS will be a solution to reduce the economic risk with improved employment generation. The continuous labour requirement for multiple crops and livestock systems provides an option for higher employment generation and keeps the farm families engaged in the farm activities. This holds good even during the COVID-19 pandemic for meeting the employment needs of reverse migrants (urban to rural). In IFS, farm activities are continued round the year, thus the farm family is effectively engaged in farm. The adoption of such systems avoids migration of farmers and rural youth to nearby cities and towns in search of contractual employment.Results showed increased use of farm machinery, 4.43 h/year in the type-3 household having a considerable land area under foodgrain (Table 1). Tractor-operated rotavator for puddling and combined harvester for reaping, threshing, and winnowing were extensively custom hired in the type-3 household. Mechanization in foodgrain cultivation was limited to custom hiring of tractor-operated rotavator for puddling in type-4 households resulting in the use of farm machinery1.40 h/year (Table 1). Brush cutter for trimming weeds, coconut tree climber for harvesting coconut, and plant protection sprayers were some of the machinery owned by a limited number of households across all farm types. The variables viz. use of farm machinery, land area under foodgrain, and net income from foodgrain sales were positively correlated, attributable to substitution of wage labourers with machines in agricultural enterprises having high work and maintenance requirements so that such enterprises remain economically viable (Fig. 1A, B; Table 1).Land use: Coconut plantation in upland and rice in lowland is the major land use. The two crop variables retained for principal component analysis (PCA) namely foodgrain area, fruit, and vegetable area, were negatively correlated to each other, suggesting that farms that dedicated large areas to field crops especially rice cultivation did so at the expense of fruits and vegetable crops especially banana, amaranth, cowpea and vice versa (Fig. 1A and Fig. 1B ; Table 1). Resource-constrained type-1 and resource endowed type-2 households exhibited the smallest cropped area under foodgrain (Table 1). The meager food grain area in type-1 and 2 households were under direct-seeded upland rice, cultivated as part of the latest efforts to diversify the existing cropping system in these households. Rice is the most widely consumed staple in the study area. The lower proportion of food grain in these households suggests that land resources had been preferentially allocated for production-oriented towards high-value crops especially fruit and vegetables (Table 1). This may be partially explained by copious non-farm income generated by type-1 and 2 households and apparent re-investment of that income preferentially for high-value crops especially fruit and vegetables.Results suggest that in resource-constrained type-1 and resource endowed type-2 households with ample off-farm and non-farm income having ensured access to market for foodgrain needs, land owned was preferentially allocated for production-oriented towards fruit and vegetables, to ensure nutritional security. It might have been otherwise utilized for land resource allocation in type-1 and 2 households had there been insufficient off-farm and non-farm income. A marginal shift from staple foodgrain to horticulture does not adversely affect food security at the household32.Resource endowed type-3 and 4 households, though had sufficient off-farm and non-farm income comparable with type-1 and 2 households, did not follow this pattern, with foodgrain area being more abundant among them. This suggested that farm households that dedicated large areas to field crops especially rice cultivation did so due to land topography favoring the prolonged presence of water creating wetlands. The rice crop residues were utilized to reduce the feeding cost of high-valued large ruminants especially cattle maintained in type-3 and 4 households (Table 1). In addition to the utilization of rice crop residues as feed for large ruminants, type-4 households had a higher proportion of land area dedicated to fodder, reducing even further their feeding cost.Livestock: The livestock species and their number owned represent the wealth of a farm household. Large ruminant cattle are the most valuable livestock. Small ruminant goats, though hardy and prolific, are less valued. Rearing of large and small ruminants is a crucial form of fortification against extreme shocks such as crop failure or medical emergency of household members, providing immediate cash. Results showed higher large ruminant ownership 1.08 LU in type-4 households (Table 1). Type-4 households recorded the highest milk production, followed by type-3 households, presumably due to higher fodder area in type-4 households leading to better feed quality and quantity, improved animal performance, and increased carrying capacity of cattle by maximizing stocking rate. The presence of state-owned milk marketing cooperative in the study area had played a role in the large ruminant ownership, due to the added advantage of assured steady market and stable milk price. Small ruminant ownership of 0.03 LU tended to be quite similar across farm types (Table 1).Households in all farm types had poultry flock kept in the traditional backyard poultry system, as a source of quick cash and protein-rich food (Table 1). The traditional backyard poultry system is characterized by an indigenous night shelter system, a scavenging system with scant supplementary feed, natural hatching of chicks, low productivity of birds, local marketing, and minimal health care practices24. Results indicated that the size of the poultry flock tended to increase as farm resource endowment decreased (Table 1). Resource constrained type-1 household exemplified this, as it had the highest poultry flock size of 0.25 LU and exhibited the highest income from poultry sales. Poultry flock size tended to be quite low and similar in resource endowed type-3 and 4 households. Backyard poultry system due to its least demanding nature in terms of infrastructure has been widely accepted by resource constrained households, enabling them to make a profit from the sale of poultry products11,33. Relatively high income from poultry sales in type-1 and 2 households represent a coping strategy to prop up household finances to access the local market for foodgrain needs. Farm households depending on traditional backyard poultry generally lacked access to adequate low-cost organic fertilizers especially farmyard manure, resulting in low productivity of crops, which may further exacerbate food insecurity28.Income: Shortfalls in agricultural production and thus agricultural income were common in the study area, compelling households to diversify their livelihoods. Sources of farm household income are on-farm, off-farm, and non-farm income34. On-farm income comprised of sales income from the crop, livestock, complementary, and supplementary enterprises (Table 1). Type-2 farm households recorded a high on-farm income of ₹1,25,600, as it befitted from a livelihood strategy of production of high valued fruit and vegetable in addition to plantation crops. Crop sales contributed 63% to on-farm income in type-2 farm households. Type-4 farm households recorded medium on-farm income ₹84,100, as it befitted from a livelihood strategy of production of fodder in addition to food grain and plantation crops. This resulted in increased carrying capacity and maximized stocking rate of large ruminant 1.08 LU. Livestock sales contributed 65% to on-farm income in type-4 farm households. Other farm enterprises viz. complementary and supplementary enterprises contributed 4% to on-farm income in type-2 farm households.The off-farm income included wages for working as hired casual labourers in farms of wealthier neighbors, wages for doing unskilled manual work under Kerala Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (KREGS), and wages for manual work under women’s labour collectives. KREGS operating under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGS) of the Government of India, provides 100 days of guaranteed employment in a year to every adult household member in need of wage employment and desire to do manual or unskilled work in and around the village. Works related to building and maintenance of canals, renovation of ponds, wells, and farmland, afforestation, etc. are undertaken under KREGS. Many women in the study area, who are homemakers had come together to form women’s labour collectives, locally known as ‘Thozil Koottam’, to take up agricultural activities related to the cultivation of paddy, banana, tubers, coconut palm, and land terracing. Once these women exhaust the 100 days of work under MGNREGS, they move out to the open market as a collective to seek work in private lands in neighboring areas. For the landowners, this meant labour availability in the local market at a reasonable rate, at a time when it had become difficult to find labourers to work. In converse, in some areas during peak agriculture season, the farmers are experiencing shortage of labour due to government’s schemes like KREGS and MGNREGS leading to increased labour wages and cost of production. In addition, reduced participation of youths in agricultural activity also led to increased shortage of labour in agricultural activity35.Non-farm income consisted of overseas remittances, running small businesses in the unorganized sector, and salary from the service sector. The proximity of the study area to the state capital provided educated youth in farm households with ample non-farm employment opportunities. Nevertheless, the dependence of farm households on off-farm and non-farm income was quite high since they contributed more than 65% to farm household income across all farm types (Table 1). Studies have shown that farm households are compelled to diversify their livelihood in times of shortfall in agricultural production36,37.Constraints to agricultural production identified for targeted farming systems interventionsThe typology results had identified four farm types based on resource endowment and livelihood strategy (Table 1). The target group is the households in a farm type who rely on research findings for ideas and strategies to improve the way they do agriculture. For solving agricultural production problems, identification of constraints that work as a bottleneck by hindering the problem-solving process is a vital step, so that targeted farming systems interventions based on research findings can be made, enabling the farm household to push against that constraint and overcome it. Research-for-development programs seeking to sustainably intensify agricultural production in the target communities should take into account the opportunities and constraints identified across the farm types and tailor their development strategies, interventions and policies accordingly 11. Cost-effective socially acceptable farming systems interventions were envisaged based on production constraints identified in farm households in each farm type, to optimize resource utilization in households within a farm type, and also to promote resource flow and interactions between farm types, to ensure the stability of existing farming systems (Table 2). Farm typologies are classifications based on a set of criteria, and farm types are generally uniform in terms of these criteria, with some intra-group variation. As a result, typologies are useful for bringing together farmers for discussion so that groups of farmers who manage their farms similarly, have similar basic goals, or have similar constraints and possibilities can be formed20,38. The following sections reflect on production constraints identified and targeted farming systems interventions envisaged in each farm type.Table 2 Constraints to agricultural production in farm types and farming systems interventions envisaged.Full size tableFarm household: Farm household is the centrepiece of the farming system. Improvements in the existing farming system involve intensification, diversification, and an increase in the operational area of the farm household. Crop-livestock farming systems are the backbone of small-holder agriculture in developing countries39. The largest share of surveyed farm households comprised of resource-constrained type-1 households 46.5% having limited access to land (Table 1). The rest of the households though had marginally higher land availability offers little scope for increasing agricultural production through land area expansion. Kerala with a high literacy rate of 94% has the highest overall life expectancy at birth, at 72 years for men and 78 years for women 40 (GoK, 2019). Household heads in all surveyed households were elderly males aged 60 years who are the decision-makers in the utilization of household land for agricultural activities (Table 1). Targeted farming systems interventions envisaged for intensification and diversification of existing farming system, therefore must be pragmatic and problem-solving to find acceptance among the increasingly aging household head, who tend to show reluctance towards drastic changes in the existing farming system.Dependence on off-farm and non-farm income was quite high among all surveyed households (Table 1). Only one out of four household members in each surveyed household were found working on-farm. Scarcity of household labour and the high cost of hired labour is likely to hamper efforts at diversification into supplementary enterprises having low-profit margins like a nutritional kitchen garden, except as part of increased awareness of health benefits to household members. Similarly, households are less likely to intensify existing rice-rice-fallow cropping system with legume cowpea in summer fallow and stop burning of crop residues in the field for clean cultivation, except as part of increased awareness about soil health and environmental pollution respectively (Table 2). Targeted farming systems interventions were therefore envisaged to be delivered through a capacity building and training program, to bring about a change in knowledge, attitude, and skill of the farm household for efficient farm operations.Foodgrain: Rice was the major foodgrain in the study area. Constraints of high severity in a type-3 household that had the largest area under food grain were low yield due to traditional variety, soil acidity, and imbalanced fertilization (Table 2). Crop loss due to pests was a constraint of high severity in type-4 households. The stale seedbed for weed management was the farming systems intervention envisaged to manage weeds in rice, which was a constraint of medium severity in the type-3 household. Farming systems intervention envisaged in summer rice fallow was raising cowpea utilizing the limited water available during the season. In general, the agricultural activity of Kerala is affected by limited water availability during winter rabi and summer season, poor soil fertility due to low nutrient holding capacity of the soil, inadequate crop protection, non-availability of quality seed material, and increased cost of cultivation. The farmers need to adapt soil test based fertilizer recommendation to meet the crop nutrient demand for reducing yield gap. Suitable pest and weed management are very much necessary to combat the crop loss. Adaption of climate resilient improved cultivars, bringing more area under irrigation, intercropping, crop rotation, and mulching are imperative to increase food grain production and to achieve food security of small and marginal farmers41.Horticulture: Banana, cowpea, cassava, and elephant foot yam were the widely cultivated fruit and vegetable in the study area (Table 2). Crop loss due to pests in banana and disease in cowpea were constraints of very high severity in type-1 households. The constraint in fruit and vegetable production due to traditional variety and imbalanced fertilization were of high to very high severity in type-2 households, which had a large area under fruit and vegetable. Raising cowpea is envisaged in farming systems interventions to utilize vacant interspaces of cassava and thus substantially lower the nitrogen fertilizer requirement of cassava. Cultivation of traditional poor-yielding turmeric varieties along with imbalanced fertilization were constraints of medium severity in the type-1 household (Table 2). Coconut was an important plantation crop in the study area, occupying the substantial cropped area in type-2 households (Table 2). Soil acidity and imbalanced fertilization were constraints of high severity in coconut in type-2 households. Crop loss in coconut due to pests was a constraint of high severity in type-3 and 4 households. Low green fodder availability due to poor yielding traditional fodder variety was a constraint of medium severity in type-2 and 3 households (Table 2). A multi-storeyed cropping system having cowpea, cassava, elephant foot yam, turmeric, banana, papaya, and fodder was the farming systems intervention envisaged to effectively utilize vacant interspaces of coconut. The Kerala state is major spice cultivating state and majority of the small, medium and large farmers are actively involved in the spice and plantation crops cultivation. The high value of spice and plantation crops is attracting rural youths also into horticulture sector, especially in processing of spices and their export to Gulf and European market. Kerala government is also promoting organic spice production to boost the local and international organic market for their products. In addition, Kerala’s home gardens are typical examples of low to medium-input sustainable agroecosystems. Home gardens are assemblages of plants, which may include trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants that grow in or close to a homestead, are planted and managed by members of the household, and the products and services are primarily for household consumption. These home gardens are having great importance in meeting farm family food and nutritional security35.Livestock: Low milk yield in dairy cattle due to lack of awareness about mastitis infection was a constraint of high severity in type-2 and 3 households (Table 2). Raising awareness about hygiene to prevent mastitis and inclusion of mineral mixture in feeding schedule to increase milk fat content are the farming systems interventions envisaged for dairy cattle. Poor egg production in layer chicken due to rearing of non-descript desi chicken breed was a constraint of medium severity in the type-2 household (Table 2). Regular deworming was the farming systems intervention envisaged to improve livestock health in all households (Table 2). The dairy farmers of Kerala are experiencing several problems like high cost of veterinary service and medicine, high cost of cattle feed ,non-availability of green and dry fodder round the year, high labour cost, lack of need based training, non-availability of high yielding milch animals42. The government and Veterinary department of Kerala needs to address these issues to boost the livestock production and farmers income.Complementary enterprises: Complementary enterprises in a system support one another43. Vermicomposting and Azolla cultivation were the complementary enterprises envisaged in farming systems interventions. Crop residues interfering with field operations was a problem, with the farmer often resorting to burning crop residue in situ, causing loss of nutrients and organic matter to the soil. Lack of awareness about environmentally safe ways to manage crop residues was a constraint of low to medium severity in all households (Table 2). Promoting the use of crop residues for vermicomposting and as mulch in banana and coconut for soil moisture conservation were the farming systems interventions envisaged to discourage the burning of crop residues (Table 2). The establishment of the Azolla plot and inclusion of Azolla in the feeding schedule of livestock were envisaged in farming systems interventions to reduce feed cost (Table 2).Supplementary enterprises: Supplementary enterprises in a system utilize the otherwise unutilized resources43. Nutritional kitchen garden, agro-processing, and value addition were the supplementary enterprises envisaged in farming systems interventions. Fruits and vegetables for household consumption were found purchased from the local market due to production shortfall within the household, which was a constraint of low to high severity in all households (Table 2). The establishment of the nutritional kitchen garden and the growing of fruit trees in the backyard were the farming systems interventions envisaged ensuring nutritional security to the household. Encouraging farmers to take control of agro-processing and local marketing of primary production to capture the value that is added to it, thus fetching a better price for the produce, was the farming systems intervention envisaged for coconut, paddy, and milk, as per their recorded severity of constraints in respective farm types (Table 2).Importance of public distribution system (PDS) for food distributionThe Public Distribution System (PDS) was created as a way to manage scarcity and distribute food grains at low rates. PDS has evolved into a key component of the government’s food economy management strategy. PDS is a supplemental program that is not meant to meet a household’s or a part of society’s complete need for any of the commodities given under it. Historically, Kerala’s agricultural production has been directed toward cash crops, rather than food crops such as rice and wheat. As a result, the problem of food scarcity in Kerala has worsened. PDS is becoming more important in Kerala, where population density is high and farming patterns are mostly dependent on rains, with no consistent irrigation infrastructure, causing food supply availability to fluctuate over time, resulting in uncertainty. In order to avoid such situations and maintain the supply of required commodities, a PDS system is essential. Kerala’s below-poverty-line (BPL) households consume 40–55 percent of their rice through PDS. The PDS supplied a higher percentage of the rice requirements. It is also clear that rural areas have done marginally better than urban areas in terms of PDS system utilization. It is worth noting that in Kerala, about 80% of BPL households still have access to the PDS, even at various levels of utilization, thereby reducing the pressure on local farmland44. More