Ecology

Plants and insectsRice (Oryza sativa) cultivar Minghui63 was used in this study. Rice plants were grown in a greenhouse at 27 ± 3 °C with 75 ± 10% RH (relative humidity) and a photoperiod of 16:8 h L:D (light:dark). The cultivation of rice plants followed the same procedure as described previously27. Plants were used for experiments when they were at the tillering stage, which occurred about 44–49 days after sowing.C. suppressalis larvae were reared on an artificial diet as described70. Ten percent honey water solution was provided to supply nutrition for the adults. N. lugens were maintained on a BPH-susceptible rice variety Taichung Native 1 (TN1)38. T. japonicum were obtained from Keyun Industry Co., Ltd (Jiyuan, China). Newly emerged adult wasps were maintained in glass tubes (3.5 cm diameter, 20 cm height) and supplied with 10% honey water solution as a food source and were maintained for at least 6 h to ensure free mating, before females were used for the following experiments. All three species were maintained in climatic chambers at 27 ± 1 °C, 75 ± 5% RH, and a photoperiod of 16:8 h L:D.Performance of caterpillars on insect-infested rice plantsMultiple types of rice plants were prepared: (i) uninfested plants, meaning that potted rice plants remained intact without insect infestation; (ii) SSB-infested plants, each potted rice plant was artificially infested with one 3rd instar SSB larva that had been starved for >3 h for 48 h; (iii) BPH-infested plants, each potted rice plant was artificially infested with a mix of fifteen 3rd and 4th instars BPH nymphs for 48 h; (iv) SSB/BPH-infested plants, each potted rice plant was simultaneously infested with one SSB larva and 15 BPH nymphs for 48 h; (v) SSB → BPH-infested plants, each potted rice plant was artificially infested with one SSB larvae alone for the first 24 h, then 15 BPH nymphs were additionally introduced for another 24 h; (vi) BPH → SSB-infested plants, namely each potted rice plant was artificially infested with 15 BPH nymphs for the first 24 h, then one SSB larvae were additionally introduced for another 24 h. Plant treatments were conducted as described in detail in our previous study27. During herbivory treatment, the uninfested plants were placed in a separate room to avoid possible volatile-mediated interference. During the subsequent bioassays, both SSB caterpillar and BPH nymphs remained in or on the rice plants.Two bioassays were conducted to test the performance of C. suppressalis larvae feeding on differently treated rice plants. The first bioassay included the plant treatments i, ii, iii, and vi, and the second bioassay included the plant treatments i, ii, v, and vi. Three 2-day-old larvae of C. suppressalis were gently introduced onto the middle stem of each rice plant using a soft brush. The infested rice plants were then placed in climatic chambers at 27 ± 1 °C, 75 ± 5% relative humidity, and a photoperiod of 16:8 h L:D. The C. suppressalis larvae were retrieved from the rice plants after 7 days feeding, and they were weighed on a precision balance (CPA2250, Sartorius AG, Germany; readability = 0.01 mg). The mean weight of the three caterpillars on each plant was considered as one biological replicate. The experiment was repeated four times using different batches of plants and herbivores, resulting in a total of 30–46 biological replicates for each treatment.Oviposition-preferences of C. suppressalis females choosing among differently infested rice plantsGreenhouse experimentIn the greenhouse, seven choice tests were conducted with C. suppressalis females including (i) SSB-infested plants versus uninfested plants; (ii) BPH-infested plants versus uninfested plants; (iii) SSB/BPH-infested plants versus uninfested plants; (iv) SSB-infested plants versus BPH-infested plants; (v) SSB-infested plants versus SSB/BPH-infested plants; (vi) BPH-infested plants versus SSB/BPH-infested plants; and (vii) the test in which C. suppressalis females were exposed to all four types of rice plants. The experiments were performed as described in detail by Jiao et al.30. In brief, four potted plants were positioned in the four corners of a cage (80 × 80 × 100 cm) made of 80-mesh nylon nets for each test. For paired comparisons, two potted plants belonging to the same treatment were placed in opposite corners of each age, and in the test with four types of rice plants, each type of plant was positioned in one of the four corners of each cage. Five pairs of freshly emerged moths (less than 1 day) were released in each cage, and a clean Petri dish (9 cm diameter) containing a cotton ball soaked with a 10% honey solution was placed in the center of the cage as food source. After 72 h, the number of individual eggs on each plant were determined. The experiment was conducted in a greenhouse at 27 ± 3 °C, 65 ± 10% RH, and a photoperiod of 16:8 h L:D. Each choice test was repeated with 9–11 times (replicates).Field cage experimentThe oviposition preference of SSB females was further assessed in a field near Langfang City (39.58° N, 116.48° E), China. Four choice tests were conducted: (i) SSB-infested plants versus uninfested plants; (ii) BPH-infested plants versus uninfested plants; (iii) SSB/BPH-infested plants versus uninfested plants; and (iv) SSB/BPH-infested plants versus SSB-infested plants. The treated rice plants were prepared as described above and were transplanted into experimental plots (1.5 × 1.5 m). For each pairwise comparison, six plots of rice plants were covered with a screened cage (8 × 5 × 2.5 m) made of 80-mesh nylon net to prevent moths from entering or escaping. Each of the six plots contained nine rice plants of a particular treatment, with three plots per cage representing the same treatment. Plots were separated by a 1 m buffer and they were alternately distributed in a 3 × 2 grid arrangement in each cage (Supplementary Fig. 4). Approximately 50 mating pairs of newly emerged C. suppressalis adults ( More

Yak and Tibetan sheep thrive under a co-grazing system on the QTP and/or are fed with the same materials; this offers an excellent opportunity to compare the gut microbiota in different host species which share a similar diet. In addition, the grazing systems on the QTP undergo seasonal diets changes in terms of pasture location and forage composition, especially between winter and summer. This presents a good natural “treatment” which helps vary the diets of the yak and Tibetan sheep populations. In the current study, based on a more substantial sample size than the previous study1, we found that diet and environment (represented by seasons winter and summer) superseded host genetics to the family level. That is to say that the gut microbiota of the two animal species showed convergent adaptation to high altitude and harsh environment in QTP, but this convergence had seasonal diets characteristics. These findings may provide a cautionary note for ongoing efforts to link host genetics to gut microbiota composition and function and would provide some food for thought in the breeding of these two livestock groups.The mammalian gut microbiota is acquired from the environment starting at birth, and its assembly and composition is largely shaped by factors such as age, diet, lifestyle, hygiene, and disease state. Researchers subconsciously believe that host species play a greater role than environmental factors when it comes to shaping gut microbiota, especially when there is a large taxonomical difference between the host species. So far, the vast majority of research have focused on the ruminal ecosystem because the rumen is primary site of feed fermentation15,16,17. It is rare to find studies that directly compare the gut microbiota of different species. However, evidence showed that energetically-important microbial products, including VFA (10–13% of total GIT VFA) are produced in the ruminant distal gut3. Hence, it is important to study the composition of distal gut microbiota of ruminants.In this study, at the phylum level, the gut microbiota composition in both groups of livestock was dominated by Bacteroidetes and Firmicutes, which was in agreement with previous reports concerning the yak18. At the same time our result consistently with other study in dairy cows that two dominated phyla Bacteroidetes and Firmicutes found in fecal samples in different seasons were abundant19,20. Firmicutes and Bacteroidetes are responsible for digestion of carbohydrates and proteins, Members of Bacteroidetes having extremely stronger ability to degrade crystalline cellulose. The previous report showed that intestinal microbiome plays an important role in digestion and absorption of the food, and maintaining animals’ health21,22. Intestinal tracts of the ruminants are rich in symbiotic bacteria that helps the body digest plant fibers23,24. Glycans are processed by the distal gut microbiota, generating biologically significant short-chain fatty acids (SCFAs, predominantly acetate, butyrate, and propionate), which serve as the principal energy source for colonocytes25. Fibers may be involved in the regulation of food intake and energy balance via the SCFA-mediated modulation of the secretion of gut hormones26. The higher abundance of Firmicutes and Bacteroidetes in yak may be associated with high-energy consumption at high altitude18.It is worth noting that, at the family level, the dominant genera (Unclassified Ruminococcaceae, Bacteroidaceae, Unclassified BS11, Unclassified Prevotellaceae, Unclassified Christensenellaceae, CF231, Unclassified Mogibacteriaceae and Unclassified Paraprevotellaceae) in the intestines of yak and Tibetan sheep were more greatly influenced by season than genetics (Fig. 5). This has not previously been accurately identified, which may be because there have been few studies into the gut microbial communities of the yak and Tibetan sheep in QTP. So, to improve their husbandry, it is important in the future to study their microbiota profiles using more precise methods such as 16S full-length sequencing or metagenomic sequencing. Ruminococcaceae is a family of autochthonous and benignspecies that primarily inhabit in the caecum and the colon27. It is known that Ruminococcaceae are common in the rumen and hindgut of ruminants, capable of degrading cellulose and starch28. As a member of short chain fatty acid (SCFA) producers, Ruminococcaceae is considered to be the most important fiber and polysaccharides-degrading bacterium in the intestine of herbivores, and produces large amounts of cellulolytic enzymes, including exoglucanases, endoglucanase, glucosidases and hemicellulase29. The microbial community of Yak and Sheep is greatly influenced by alterations in dietary nutrition, Bacteroidaceae have the ability to degrade complex molecules (polysaccharides, proteins) in the intestine18, which can promote the Yak utilizes grasses as its major source of nutrition, due to shortage of grain and other nutrients. Prevotellaceae is responsible for hemicellulose, pectin and high carbohydrate food digestion30. The higher abundance of these microbes may contribute to gaining more energy, and play vital roles in the process of adaption of the hosts to the harsh natural environment15. Bacteroidales BS11 gut group are specialized to active hemicellulose monomeric sugars (e.g., xylose, fucose, mannose and rhamnose) fermentation and short-chain fatty acid (e.g., acetate and butyrate) production that are vital for ruminant energy31. The Bacteroidales BS11 was positively correlated with some metabolites that are involved in amino acid metabolism and biosynthesis, as well as the metabolism of energy sources, such as starch, sucrose, and galactose32.At the genus level, 5-7N15 was most abundant in winter in both animals, on the contrary, the Provotella was predominate. Here, our results indicated that seasonal diets change superseded variations derived from genetic differences between the host species, even though the yak and Tibetan sheep are very different, both taxonomically and in terms of body size. In summer, the forage grass on the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau is dominated by Agropyron cristatum, Elymus nutans, Festuca ovina, Kobresia humilis, Poa pratensis, Stipa aliena, Kobresia pygmaea, Oxytropis biflora, Saussurea hieracioides, Astragalus arnoldii Hemsl. In winter, the main forage was Brachypodium sylvaticum. Carex crebra, Trisetum spicatum and Bupleurum smithii. Stipa has both high palatability and nutritional value, with a high content of crude protein, crude fat, and nitrogen- free extract, and low levels of crude fiber33. The levels of crude protein, crude fat, and nitrogen-free extracts of Brachypodium sylvaticum. Carex crebra, Trisetum spicatum and Bupleurum smithii were lower than that of Stipa, whereas the content of crude fiber was higher than that of Stipa34. Crude protein is the main nutrient of herbage. Crude fat and nitrogen-free extracts provide heat and energy33.Lopes et al. reported that some OTUs known to be functionally relevant for fiber degradation and host development were shared across the entire gastrointestinal tract and present within the feces35. Microbial diversity increases in the distal segments of the gastrointestinal tract. Microbial fermentation appears to be reestablished in the large intestine, with the proportion of acetate, propionate and butyrate being similar to the rumen.Several explanations for this phenomenon are possible. Firstly, both the yak and Tibetan sheep are ruminants. In herbivores, the gut microbiota is dominated by Firmicutes and Bacteroides, the functions of which are related to cellulose digestion36. Therefore, ruminant microbes could possibly be more similar across species than gut microbes from elsewhere.Secondly, the yaks and Tibetan sheep in our study co-grazed from birth to death. As such, the initial gut microbiota source, responsible for populating the remainder of the gut in the months and years after the initial seeding at birth, would necessarily come from the same environment. It has been established that early life events are critical for gut microbiota development and for shaping the adult microbiota. Lifestyle and diet will further influence the composition and function of the gut microbiota. In our study, the investigated animals shared a very similar lifestyle and obtained their diets from the same source. The results revealed that sheep and yaks presented almost identical gut microbiota compositions in the winter, but by the date of collection of the summer samples they were quite different. The reason for this could be that during summer and summer there is pronounced pastoral grass growth, giving the animals more variety and choice in their diets; it is known, after all, that sheep have different diet preferences to yaks37. However, during the winter, the animals have no option but to eat the same food in order to survive until winter.Thirdly, there could be a convergent evolution of gut microbiomes in yaks and Tibetan sheep due to the extremely harsh environment in high-altitude regions1,38. When compared with their low-altitude relatives, cattle (Bos taurus) and ordinary sheep (Ovis aries), metagenomic analyses revealed significant enrichment in rumen microbial genes involving volatile fatty acid-yielding pathways in yaks and Tibetan sheep, whereas methanogenesis pathways were enriched in the cattle metagenome. Analyses of RNA transcriptomes revealed significant upregulation in 36 genes associated with volatile fatty acid transport and absorption in the ruminal epithelium of yaks and Tibetan sheep. This suggests that, aside from host genetics, long-term exposure to harsh environments has allowed the gut microbiome to adapt in order to boost health and survival. In other words, although yaks and Tibetan sheep are very different genetically, their gut microbiota could be similar due to the selection pressures of the high altitude at which they live. Meanwhile, from our data based on functional gene composition (Fig. S3), it is also worth noting that there were no groups clearly distinguished from one another, although the PERMANOVA results indicated both a host and season effect, with the interaction between them being statistically significant. Though factors such as environment and diet (represented by seasons) can trump host genetics, we could not ignore the interplay of these factors as gut microbes are a very complex community.Winter is the harshest period for the survival of yak and Tibetan sheep. To maintain the survival, it’s best to feed the animals with a high protein content. Furthermore, to get more detailed data in different seasons and various dietary habits of yak and sheep, more study should be assessed about intestinal microbiota by collecting feces. More

1.Letko, M., Seifert, S. N., Olival, K. J., Plowright, R. K. & Munster, V. J. Bat-borne virus diversity, spillover and emergence. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 18, 461–471 (2020). This is a review of the overall diversity of bat-borne coronaviruses and research agenda for enhanced characterization of their zoonotic and pandemic potential.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
2.Dobson, B. A. P. et al. Ecology and economics for pandemic prevention. Science 369, 379–381 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
3.Plowright, R. K. et al. Land use-induced spillover: a call to action to safeguard environmental, animal, and human health. Lancet Planet. Heal. 5, e237–e245 (2021).
Google Scholar 
4.Shivaprakash, K. N., Sen, S., Paul, S., Kiesecker, J. M. & Bawa, K. S. Mammals, wildlife trade, and the next global pandemic. Curr. Biol. 31, 3671–3677.e3 (2021).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
5.Huong, N. Q. et al. Coronavirus testing indicates transmission risk increases along wildlife supply chains for human consumption in Viet Nam, 2013–2014. PLoS ONE 15, e0237129 (2020). This study provides evidence that coronavirus detection increases along the supply chain of rodents destined for human consumption.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
6.Xiao, X., Newman, C., Buesching, C. D., Macdonald, D. W. & Zhou, Z.-M. Animal sales from Wuhan wet markets immediately prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. Sci. Rep. 11, 11898 (2021).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
7.Chen, L., Liu, B., Yang, J. & Jin, Q. DBatVir: the database of bat-associated viruses. Database 2014, 1–7 (2014).
Google Scholar 
8.Tao, Y. et al. Surveillance of bat coronaviruses in Kenya identifies relatives of human coronaviruses NL63 and 229E and their recombination history. J. Virol. 91, 1–16 (2017).CAS 

Google Scholar 
9.Cui, J., Li, F. & Shi, Z. L. Origin and evolution of pathogenic coronaviruses. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 17, 181–192 (2019).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
10.Zhou, P. et al. A pneumonia outbreak associated with a new coronavirus of probable bat origin. Nature 579, 270–273 (2020). This is one of the first studies to discover viruses related to SARS-CoV-2 in wild Rhinolophus spp. bats in China.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
11.Forni, D., Cagliani, R., Clerici, M. & Sironi, M. Molecular evolution of human coronavirus genomes. Trends Microbiol. 25, 35–48 (2017).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
12.Zhou, P. et al. Fatal swine acute diarrhoea syndrome caused by an HKU2-related coronavirus of bat origin. Nature 556, 255–258 (2018).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
13.Wang, N. et al. Serological evidence of bat SARS-related coronavirus infection in humans, China. Virol. Sin. 33, 104–107 (2018). This study provides evidence of potentially undetected spillovers of bat-associated coronaviruses in rural human populations in China.PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
14.Li, H. et al. Human-animal interactions and bat coronavirus spillover potential among rural residents in southern China. Biosaf. Heal. 1, 84–90 (2019).
Google Scholar 
15.Woo, P. C. Y. et al. Discovery of seven novel mammalian and avian coronaviruses in the genus Deltacoronavirus supports bat coronaviruses as the gene source of Alphacoronavirus and Betacoronavirus and avian coronaviruses as the gene source of Gammacoronavirus and Deltacoronavirus. J. Virol. 86, 3995–4008 (2012).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
16.Anthony, S. J. et al. Global patterns in coronavirus diversity. Virus Evol. 3, 1–15 (2017). This is a review of ecological patterns of associations between bats and coronaviruses with information up to 2014.
Google Scholar 
17.Li, W. et al. Bats are natural reservoirs of SARS-like coronaviruses. Science 310, 676–679 (2005).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
18.Lau, S. K. P. et al. Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-like virus in Chinese horseshoe bats. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 102, 14040–14045 (2005).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
19.Anthony, S. et al. Coronaviruses in bats from Mexico. J. Gen. Virol. 94, 1028–1038 (2013).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
20.Latinne, A. et al. Origin and cross-species transmission of bat coronaviruses in China. Nat. Commun. 11, 4235 (2020). Using 5 years of surveillance data on coronaviruses in bats in China, the authors show that host switching is common in bat coronaviruses, particularly in Rhinolophus spp.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
21.Ithete, N. L. et al. Close relative of human Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus in bat, South Africa. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 19, 1697–1699 (2013).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
22.Råberg, L., Graham, A. L. & Read, A. F. Decomposing health: tolerance and resistance to parasites in animals. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B. Biol. Sci. 364, 37–49 (2009).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
23.Schlottau, K. et al. SARS-CoV-2 in fruit bats, ferrets, pigs, and chickens: an experimental transmission study. Lancet Microbe 1, e218–e225 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
24.Munster, V. J. et al. Replication and shedding of MERS-CoV in Jamaican fruit bats (Artibeus jamaicensis). Sci. Rep. 6, 1–10 (2016).
Google Scholar 
25.van Doremalen, N. et al. SARS-like coronavirus WIV1-CoV does not replicate in Egyptian fruit bats (Rousettus aegyptiacus). Viruses 10, 727 (2018).PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
26.Plowright, R. K. et al. Transmission or within-host dynamics driving pulses of zoonotic viruses in reservoir–host populations. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 10, 1–21 (2016).
Google Scholar 
27.Jeong, J. et al. Persistent infections support maintenance of a coronavirus in a population of Australian bats (Myotis macropus). Epidemiol. Infect. 145, 2053–2061 (2017).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
28.Watanabe, S. et al. Bat coronaviruses and experimental infection of bats, the Philippines. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 16, 1217–1223 (2010).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
29.Subudhi, S. et al. A persistently infecting coronavirus in hibernating Myotis lucifugus, the North American little brown bat. J. Gen. Virol. 98, 2297–2309 (2017).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
30.Widagdo, W. et al. Tissue distribution of the MERS-coronavirus receptor in bats. Sci. Rep. 7, 1–8 (2017).CAS 

Google Scholar 
31.Banerjee, A. et al. Selection of viral variants during persistent infection of insectivorous bat cells with Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus. Sci. Rep. 10, 7257 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
32.Wang, M.-N. N. et al. Longitudinal surveillance of SARS-like coronaviruses in bats by quantitative real-time PCR. Virol. Sin. 31, 78–80 (2016).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
33.Ge, X. Y. et al. Isolation and characterization of a bat SARS-like coronavirus that uses the ACE2 receptor. Nature 503, 535–538 (2013).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
34.Hu, B. et al. Discovery of a rich gene pool of bat SARS-related coronaviruses provides new insights into the origin of SARS coronavirus. PLoS Pathog. 13, 1–27 (2017).CAS 

Google Scholar 
35.Smith, C. Australian bat coronaviruses (The University of Queensland, 2015).36.Baldwin, H. J. Epidemiology and ecology of virus and host: bats and coronaviruses in Ghana, West Africa (Macquarie University & Ulm University, 2015).37.Joffrin, L. et al. Bat coronavirus phylogeography in the Western Indian Ocean. Sci. Rep. 10, 1–11 (2020).
Google Scholar 
38.Plowright, R. K. et al. Reproduction and nutritional stress are risk factors for Hendra virus infection in little red flying foxes (Pteropus scapulatus). Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 275, 861–869 (2008).
Google Scholar 
39.Peel, A. J. et al. Synchronous shedding of multiple bat paramyxoviruses coincides with peak periods of Hendra virus spillover. Emerg. Microbes Infect. 8, 1314–1323 (2019). This study provides evidence of co-circulation of multiple viruses in single and multispecies roosts of flying foxes, with higher diversity of viruses in mixed-species roosts.PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
40.Wacharapluesadee, S. et al. Longitudinal study of age-specific pattern of coronavirus infection in Lyle’s flying fox (Pteropus lylei) in Thailand. Virol. J. 15, 1–10 (2018).
Google Scholar 
41.Lau, S. K. P. et al. Ecoepidemiology and complete genome comparison of different strains of severe acute respiratory syndrome-related Rhinolophus bat coronavirus in China reveal bats as a reservoir for acute, self-limiting infection that allows recombination events. J. Virol. 84, 2808–2819 (2010).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
42.Willoughby, A., Phelps, K. & Olival, K. A comparative analysis of viral richness and viral sharing in cave-roosting bats. Diversity 9, 35 (2017).
Google Scholar 
43.Lloyd-Smith, J. O., Schreiber, S. J., Kopp, P. E. & Getz, W. M. Superspreading and the effect of individual variation on disease emergence. Nature 438, 355–359 (2005).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
44.Lee, K. A. Linking immune defenses and life history at the levels of the individual and the species. Integr. Comp. Biol. 46, 1000–1015 (2006).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
45.Robinson, D. P. & Klein, S. L. Pregnancy and pregnancy-associated hormones alter immune responses and disease pathogenesis. Horm. Behav. 62, 263–271 (2012).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
46.Pauly, M. et al. Novel alphacoronaviruses and paramyxoviruses cocirculate with type 1 and severe acute respiratory system (SARS)-related betacoronaviruses in synanthropic bats of Luxembourg. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.01326-17 (2017).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
47.Drexler, J. F. et al. Amplification of emerging viruses in a bat colony. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 17, 449–456 (2011).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
48.Annan, A. et al. Human betacoronavirus 2c EMC/2012-related viruses in bats, Ghana and Europe. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 19, 456–459 (2013).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
49.Montecino-Latorre, D. et al. Reproduction of East-African bats may guide risk mitigation for coronavirus spillover. One Heal. Outlook 2, 2 (2020).
Google Scholar 
50.Plowright, R. K., Becker, D. J., McCallum, H. & Manlove, K. R. Sampling to elucidate the dynamics of infections in reservoir hosts. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2018.0336 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
51.Vanalli, C. et al. Within-host mechanisms of immune regulation explain the contrasting dynamics of two helminth species in both single and dual infections. PLoS Comput. Biol. 16, 1–19 (2020).
Google Scholar 
52.Ge, X. Y. et al. Coexistence of multiple coronaviruses in several bat colonies in an abandoned mineshaft. Virol. Sin. 31, 31–40 (2016).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
53.Chu, D. K. W., Peiris, J. S. M., Chen, H., Guan, Y. & Poon, L. L. M. Genomic characterizations of bat coronaviruses (1A, 1B and HKU8) and evidence for co-infections in Miniopterus bats. J. Gen. Virol. 89, 1282–1287 (2008).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
54.Drexler, J. F. et al. Genomic characterization of severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus in European bats and classification of coronaviruses based on partial RNA-dependent RNA polymerase gene sequences. J. Virol. 84, 11336–11349 (2010).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
55.Tong, S. et al. Detection of novel SARS-like and other coronaviruses in bats from Kenya. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 15, 482–485 (2009).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
56.Wacharapluesadee, S. et al. Diversity of coronavirus in bats from eastern Thailand emerging viruses. Virol. J. 12, 1–7 (2015).
Google Scholar 
57.Valitutto, M. T. et al. Detection of novel coronaviruses in bats in Myanmar. PLoS ONE 15, e0230802 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
58.Anthony, S. J. et al. A strategy to estimate unknown viral diversity in mammals. mBio 4, 289 (2013).
Google Scholar 
59.Prada, D., Boyd, V., Baker, M. L., O’Dea, M. & Jackson, B. Viral diversity of microbats within the south west botanical province of Western Australia. Viruses 11, 1–21 (2019).
Google Scholar 
60.Seltmann, A. et al. Seasonal fluctuations of astrovirus, but not coronavirus shedding in bats inhabiting human-modified tropical forests. Ecohealth 14, 272–284 (2017).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
61.Chu, D. K. W., Poon, L. L. M., Guan, Y. & Peiris, J. S. M. Novel astroviruses in insectivorous Bats. J. Virol. 82, 9107–9114 (2008).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
62.Kemenesi, G. et al. Molecular survey of RNA viruses in Hungarian bats: discovering novel astroviruses, coronaviruses, and caliciviruses. Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis. 14, 846–855 (2014).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
63.Rizzo, F. et al. Coronavirus and paramyxovirus in bats from northwest Italy. BMC Vet. Res. 13, 1–11 (2017).
Google Scholar 
64.Paskey, A. C. et al. The temporal RNA virome patterns of a lesser dawn bat (Eonycteris spelaea) colony revealed by deep sequencing. Virus Evol. 6, 1–14 (2020).
Google Scholar 
65.Davy, C. M. et al. White-nose syndrome is associated with increased replication of a naturally persisting coronaviruses in bats. Sci. Rep. 8, 15508 (2018).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
66.Woo, P. C. Y., Lau, S. K. P., Huang, Y. & Yuen, K.-Y. Y. Coronavirus diversity, phylogeny and interspecies jumping. Exp. Biol. Med. 234, 1117–1127 (2009).CAS 

Google Scholar 
67.Fehr, A. R. & Perlman, S. in Coronaviruses. Methods in Molecular Biology Vol 1282 (eds Maier, H., Bickerton, E. & Britton, P.) 1–23 (Humana Press, 2015).68.Duffy, S., Shackelton, L. A. & Holmes, E. C. Rates of evolutionary change in viruses: patterns and determinants. Nat. Rev. Genet. 9, 267–276 (2008).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
69.Jenkins, G. M., Rambaut, A., Pybus, O. G. & Holmes, E. C. Rates of molecular evolution in RNA viruses: a quantitative phylogenetic analysis. J. Mol. Evol. 54, 156–165 (2002).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
70.Eckerle, L. D. et al. Infidelity of SARS-CoV Nsp14-exonuclease mutant virus replication is revealed by complete genome sequencing. PLoS Pathog. 6, 1–15 (2010).
Google Scholar 
71.Ogando, N. S. et al. The curious case of the nidovirus exoribonuclease: its role in RNA synthesis and replication fidelity. Front. Microbiol. 10, 1–17 (2019).
Google Scholar 
72.Nga, P. T. et al. Discovery of the first insect nidovirus, a missing evolutionary link in the emergence of the largest RNA virus genomes. PLoS Pathog. 7, e1002215 (2011).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
73.Smith, E., Blanc, H., Vignuzzi, M. & Denison, M. R. Coronaviruses lacking exoribonuclease activity are susceptible to lethal mutagenesis: evidence for proofreading and potential therapeutics. PLoS Pathog. 9, e1003565 (2013).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
74.Martin, L. B. et al. Extreme competence: keystone hosts of infections. Trends Ecol. Evol. 34, 303–314 (2019).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
75.Graham, R. L. & Baric, R. S. Recombination, reservoirs, and the modular spike: mechanisms of coronavirus cross-species transmission. J. Virol. 84, 3134–3146 (2010).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
76.Letko, M. et al. Adaptive evolution of MERS-CoV to species variation in DPP4. Cell Rep. 24, 1730–1737 (2018).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
77.Ermonval, M., Baychelier, F. & Tordo, N. What do we know about how hantaviruses interact with their different hosts? Viruses 8, 223 (2016).PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
78.Su, S. et al. Epidemiology, genetic recombination, and pathogenesis of coronaviruses. Trends Microbiol. 24, 490–502 (2016).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
79.Lai, M. M. et al. Recombination between nonsegmented RNA genomes of murine coronaviruses. J. Virol. 56, 449–456 (1985).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
80.Tian, P.-F. et al. Evidence of recombinant strains of porcine epidemic diarrhea virus, United States, 2013. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 20, 1731–1734 (2014).
Google Scholar 
81.Terada, Y. et al. Emergence of pathogenic coronaviruses in cats by homologous recombination between feline and canine coronaviruses. PLoS ONE 9, e106534 (2014).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
82.Decaro, N. et al. Recombinant canine coronaviruses related to transmissible gastroenteritis virus of swine are circulating in dogs. J. Virol. 83, 1532–1537 (2009).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
83.Zhang, Y. et al. Genotype shift in human coronavirus OC43 and emergence of a novel genotype by natural recombination. J. Infect. 70, 641–650 (2015).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
84.Pyrc, K., Berkhout, B. & van der hoek, L. in Recent Research in Development of Infection & Immunity 3rd edn 25–48 (Transworld Research Network, 2005).85.Woo, P. C. Y. et al. Phylogenetic and recombination analysis of coronavirus HKU1, a novel coronavirus from patients with pneumonia. Arch. Virol. 150, 2299–2311 (2005).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
86.Zhang, X. W., Yap, Y. L. & Danchin, A. Testing the hypothesis of a recombinant origin of the SARS-associated coronavirus. Arch. Virol. 150, 1–20 (2005).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
87.Stanhope, M. J., Brown, J. R. & Amrine-Madsen, H. Evidence from the evolutionary analysis of nucleotide sequences for a recombinant history of SARS-CoV. Infect. Genet. Evol. 4, 15–19 (2004).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
88.Wang, Y. et al. Origin and possible genetic recombination of the middle east respiratory syndrome coronavirus from the first imported case in China: phylogenetics and coalescence analysis. MBio 6, 1–6 (2015).
Google Scholar 
89.Huang, C. et al. A bat-derived putative cross-family recombinant coronavirus with a reovirus gene. PLoS Pathog. 12, 1–25 (2016). This study provides evidence of cross-family recombination between coronaviruses and reoviruses.
Google Scholar 
90.Drexler, J. F., Corman, V. M. & Drosten, C. Ecology, evolution and classification of bat coronaviruses in the aftermath of SARS. Antivir. Res. 101, 45–56 (2014).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
91.Cui, J. et al. Evolutionary relationships between bat coronaviruses and their hosts. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 13, 1526–1532 (2007).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
92.Davies, N. et al. Estimated transmissibility and impact of SARS-CoV-2 lineage B.1.1.7 in England. Sci 372, eabg3055 (2021).CAS 

Google Scholar 
93.Reguera, J., Mudgal, G., Santiago, C. & Casasnovas, J. M. A structural view of coronavirus-receptor interactions. Virus Res. 194, 3–15 (2014).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
94.Lim, Y., Ng, Y., Tam, J. & Liu, D. Human coronaviruses: a review of virus–host interactions. Diseases 4, 26 (2016).
Google Scholar 
95.Masters, P. S. & Perlman, S. Coronaviridae. Fields Virol. 1, 825–858 (2013).
Google Scholar 
96.Letko, M., Marzi, A. & Munster, V. Functional assessment of cell entry and receptor usage for SARS-CoV-2 and other lineage B betacoronaviruses. Nat. Microbiol. 5, 562–569 (2020). This study uses a functional viromics platform to rapidly characterize the zoonotic potential of new coronaviruses on the basis of genome sequences.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
97.van Doremalen, N. et al. Host species restriction of middle east respiratory syndrome coronavirus through its receptor, dipeptidyl peptidase 4. J. Virol. 88, 9220–9232 (2014).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
98.Conceicao, C. et al. The SARS-CoV-2 spike protein has a broad tropism for mammalian ACE2 proteins. PLoS Biol. 18, e3001016 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
99.Li, W. et al. Receptor and viral determinants of SARS-coronavirus adaptation to human ACE2. EMBO J. 24, 1634–1643 (2005).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
100.Damas, J. et al. Broad host range of SARS-CoV-2 predicted by comparative and structural analysis of ACE2 in vertebrates. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117, 22311–22322 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
101.Shi, J. et al. Susceptibility of ferrets, cats, dogs, and other domesticated animals to SARS–coronavirus 2. Science 1020, 1016–1020 (2020).
Google Scholar 
102.Oude Munnink, B. B. et al. Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 on mink farms between humans and mink and back to humans. Science 371, 172–177 (2021). The study provides evidence of spillback of SARS-CoV-2 into mink populations, rapid and widespread transmission, and seeding of mink-associated genetic variants back into humans.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
103.Hoffmann, M. et al. Differential sensitivity of bat cells to infection by enveloped RNA viruses: coronaviruses, paramyxoviruses, filoviruses, and influenza viruses. PLoS ONE 8, e72942 (2013).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
104.Li, W. et al. Animal origins of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus: insight from ACE2-S-protein interactions. J. Virol. 80, 4211–4219 (2006).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
105.Hou, Y. et al. Angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) proteins of different bat species confer variable susceptibility to SARS-CoV entry. Arch. Virol. 155, 1563–1569 (2010).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
106.Boni, M. F. et al. Evolutionary origins of the SARS-CoV-2 sarbecovirus lineage responsible for the COVID-19 pandemic. Nat. Microbiol. 5, 1408–1417 (2020). This study provids phylogenetic evidence that suggests that the ancestral lineages from which SARS-CoV-2 may have originated have circulated undetected in bats for decades.CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
107.Wells, H. L. et al. The evolutionary history of ACE2 usage within the coronavirus subgenus Sarbecovirus. Virus Evol. 7, 1–22 (2021).
Google Scholar 
108.Urbanowicz, R. A. et al. Human adaptation of Ebola virus during the West African outbreak. Cell 167, 1079–1087.e5 (2016).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
109.Gupta, A. et al. Extrapulmonary manifestations of COVID-19. Nat. Med. 26, 1017–1032 (2020).CAS 

Google Scholar 
110.Hamming, I. et al. Tissue distribution of ACE2 protein, the functional receptor for SARS coronavirus. A first step in understanding SARS pathogenesis. J. Pathol. 203, 631–637 (2004).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
111.Lam, T. T. Y. et al. Identifying SARS-CoV-2-related coronaviruses in Malayan pangolins. Nature 583, 282–285 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
112.Martina, B. E. E. et al. SARS virus infection of cats and ferrets. Nature 425, 915 (2003).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
113.Munster, V. J. et al. Respiratory disease in rhesus macaques inoculated with SARS-CoV-2. Nature 585, 268–272 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
114.Hou, Y. J. et al. SARS-CoV-2 reverse genetics reveals a variable infection gradient in the respiratory tract. Cell 182, 429–446.e14 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
115.Menachery, V. D. et al. Trypsin treatment unlocks barrier for zoonotic bat coronavirus infection. J. Virol. 94, 1–15 (2019).
Google Scholar 
116.Qian, Z., Dominguez, S. R. & Holmes, K. V. Role of the spike glycoprotein of human Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) in virus entry and syncytia formation. PLoS ONE 8, 1–12 (2013).
Google Scholar 
117.Belouzard, S., Chu, V. C. & Whittaker, G. R. Activation of the SARS coronavirus spike protein via sequential proteolytic cleavage at two distinct sites. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106, 5871–5876 (2009).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
118.Barlan, A. et al. Receptor variation and susceptibility to middle east respiratory syndrome coronavirus infection. J. Virol. 88, 4953–4961 (2014).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
119.Zheng, Y. et al. Lysosomal proteases are a determinant of coronavirus tropism. J. Virol. 92, 1–14 (2018).
Google Scholar 
120.Bertram, S. et al. Cleavage and activation of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus spike protein by human airway trypsin-like protease. J. Virol. 85, 13363–13372 (2011).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
121.Matsuyama, S., Ujike, M., Morikawa, S., Tashiro, M. & Taguchi, F. Protease-mediated enhancement of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus infection. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 102, 12543–12547 (2005).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
122.Yang, Y. et al. Receptor usage and cell entry of bat coronavirus HKU4 provide insight into bat-to-human transmission of MERS coronavirus. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 12516–12521 (2014).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
123.Wacharapluesadee, S. et al. Group C betacoronavirus in bat guano fertilizer, Thailand. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 19, 1349–1351 (2013).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
124.Luk, H. K. H., Li, X., Fung, J., Lau, S. K. P. & Woo, P. C. Y. Molecular epidemiology, evolution and phylogeny of SARS coronavirus. Infect. Genet. Evol. 71, 21–30 (2019).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
125.Wu, K., Peng, G., Wilken, M., Geraghty, R. J. & Li, F. Mechanisms of host receptor adaptation by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus. J. Biol. Chem. 287, 8904–8911 (2012).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
126.Daszak, P., Olival, K. J. & Li, H. A strategy to prevent future epidemics similar to the 2019-nCoV outbreak. Biosaf. Heal. 2, 6–8 (2020).
Google Scholar 
127.Tidemann, C. & Vardon, M. Pests, pestilence, pollen and pot roasts: the need for community based management of flying foxes in Australia. Aust. Biol. 10, 77–83 (1997).
Google Scholar 
128.Mickleburgh, S., Waylen, K. & Racey, P. Bats as bushmeat: a global review. Oryx 43, 217–234 (2009).
Google Scholar 
129.Tuttle, M. D. & Moreno, A. Cave-Dwelling Bats of Northern Mexico: Their Value and Conservation Needs (Bat Conservation International, 2005).130.Rulli, M. C., D’Odorico, P., Galli, N. & Hayman, D. T. S. Land-use change and the livestock revolution increase the risk of zoonotic coronavirus transmission from rhinolophid bats. Nat. Food https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-021-00285-x (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
131.Mckee, C. D., Islam, A., Luby, S. P., Salje, H. & Hudson, P. J. The ecology of Nipah virus in Bangladesh: a nexus of land use change and opportunistic feeding behavior in bats. Viruses 13, 169 (2020).
Google Scholar 
132.Kessler, M. K. et al. Changing resource landscapes and spillover of henipaviruses. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.13910 (2018).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
133.Dighe, A., Jombart, T., Van Kerkhove, M. D. & Ferguson, N. A systematic review of MERS-CoV seroprevalence and RNA prevalence in dromedary camels: implications for animal vaccination. Epidemics 29, 100350 (2019).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
134.Hegde, S. T. et al. Using healthcare-seeking behaviour to estimate the number of Nipah outbreaks missed by hospital-based surveillance in Bangladesh. Int. J. Epidemiol. 48, 1219–1227 (2019).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
135.Glennon, E. E., Jephcott, F. L., Restif, O. & Wood, J. L. N. Estimating undetected Ebola spillovers. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 13, 1–10 (2019).
Google Scholar 
136.Matson, M. J., Chertow, D. S. & Munster, V. J. Delayed recognition of Ebola virus disease is associated with longer and larger outbreaks. Emerg. Microbes Infect. 9, 291–301 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
137.Zheng, B. J. et al. SARS-related virus predating SARS outbreak, Hong Kong. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 10, 176–178 (2004). This study provides serological evidence that populations in Hong Kong sampled in 2001 may have been exposed to SARS-CoV or related viruses in bats or other animals before the first SARS outbreaks.PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
138.Yu, S. et al. Retrospective serological investigation of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus antibodies in recruits from mainland China. Clin. Diagn. Lab. Immunol. 12, 552–554 (2005).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
139.Lloyd-Smith, J. O. et al. Epidemic dynamics at the human-animal interface. Science 326, 1362–1367 (2009).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
140.Plowright, R. K. et al. Pathways to zoonotic spillover. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 15, 502–510 (2017). This study formulates a conceptual model for the multiple layers of ecological and cellular barriers that affect the likelihood of pathogen spillover from animals.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
141.Klompus, S. et al. Cross-reactive antibodies against human coronaviruses and the animal coronavirome suggest diagnostics for future zoonotic spillovers. Sci. Immunol. 6, eabe9950 (2021).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
142.Field, H. E. Hendra virus ecology and transmission. Curr. Opin. Virol. 16, 120–125 (2016).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
143.Chua, K. B. Nipah virus outbreak in Malaysia. J. Clin. Virol. 26, 265–275 (2003).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
144.Azhar, E. I. et al. Evidence for camel-to-human transmission of MERS coronavirus. N. Engl. J. Med. 370, 2499–2505 (2014).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
145.Memish, Z. A. et al. Respiratory tract samples, viral load, and genome fraction yield in patients with middle east respiratory syndrome. J. Infect. Dis. 210, 1590–1594 (2014).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
146.Buchholz, U. et al. Contact investigation of a case of human novel coronavirus infection treated in a German hospital, October-November 2012. Eurosurveillance 18, 1–7 (2013).
Google Scholar 
147.Chu, D. K. W. et al. MERS coronaviruses in dromedary camels, Egypt. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 20, 1049–1053 (2014).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
148.Zhou, H. et al. Identification of novel bat coronaviruses sheds light on the evolutionary origins of SARS-CoV-2 and related viruses. Cell 184, 4380–4391.e14 (2021). This study reports the discovery of additional coronaviruses related to SARS-CoV-2 in Rhinolophus spp. and use of ecological modelling to highlight areas of southern China and South-East Asia as hotspots of Rhinolophus species diversity.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
149.Larsen, H. D. et al. Preliminary report of an outbreak of SARS-CoV-2 in mink and mink farmers associated with community spread, Denmark, June to November 2020. Eur. Surveill. 26, 2100009 (2021).CAS 

Google Scholar 
150.Bertzbach, L. D. et al. SARS-CoV-2 infection of Chinese hamsters (Cricetulus griseus) reproduces COVID-19 pneumonia in a well-established small animal model. Transbound. Emerg. Dis. 68, 1075–1079 (2021).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
151.Fagre, A. et al. SARS-CoV-2 infection, neuropathogenesis and transmission among deer mice: Implications for spillback to New World rodents. PLoS Pathog. 17, e1009585 (2021).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
152.Imai, M. et al. Syrian hamsters as a small animal model for SARS-CoV-2 infection and countermeasure development. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117, 16587–16595 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
153.Sia, S. F. et al. Pathogenesis and transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in golden hamsters. Nature 583, 834–838 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
154.Halfmann, P. J. et al. Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in domestic cats. N. Engl. J. Med. 383, 592–594 (2020).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
155.Griffin, B. D. et al. SARS-CoV-2 infection and transmission in the North American deer mouse. Nat. Commun. 12, 1–10 (2021).
Google Scholar 
156.Palmer, M. V. et al. Susceptibility of white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) to SARS-CoV-2. J. Virol. 95, e00083–21 (2021).CAS 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
157.Plowright, R. K. & Hudson, P. J. From protein to pandemic: the transdisciplinary approach needed to prevent spillover and the next pandemic. Viruses 13, 1298 (2021).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
158.Obameso, J. O. et al. The persistent prevalence and evolution of cross-family recombinant coronavirus GCCDC1 among a bat population: a two-year follow-up. Sci. China Life Sci. 60, 1357–1363 (2017). This study provides evidence of coronavirus evolution in a longitudinally sampled population of bats.PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
159.Lazov, C. et al. Detection and characterization of distinct alphacoronaviruses in five different bat species in Denmark. Viruses 10, 486 (2018).PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
160.Hu, D. et al. Genomic characterization and infectivity of a novel SARS-like coronavirus in Chinese bats. Emerg. Microbes Infect. 7, 1–10 (2018).
Google Scholar 
161.Pepin, K. M., Lass, S., Pulliam, J. R. C., Read, A. F. & Lloyd-Smith, J. O. Identifying genetic markers of adaptation for surveillance of viral host jumps. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 8, 802–813 (2010).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
162.Hemida, M. G. et al. Coronavirus infections in horses in Saudi Arabia and Oman. Transbound. Emerg. Dis. 64, 2093–2103 (2017).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
163.Zhuang, Q. et al. Surveillance and taxonomic analysis of the coronavirus dominant in pigeons in China. Transbound. Emerg. Dis. 67, 1981–1990 (2020).CAS 

Google Scholar 
164.O’Brien, S. J. et al. Genetic basis for species vulnerability in the cheetah. Science 227, 1428–1434 (1985).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
165.Herrewegh, A. A. P. M., Smeenk, I., Horzinek, M. C., Rottier, P. J. M. & de Groot, R. J. Feline coronavirus type II strains 79-1683 and 79-1146 originate from a double recombination between feline coronavirus type I and canine coronavirus. J. Virol. 72, 4508–4514 (1998).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar  More

1.IPCC Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 °C (eds Masson-Delmotte, V. et al.) (WMO, 2018).2.Anderson, C. M. et al. Natural climate solutions are not enough. Science 363, 933–934 (2019).CAS 

Google Scholar 
3.Carton, W., Lund, J. F. & Dooley, K. Undoing equivalence: rethinking carbon accounting for just carbon removal. Front. Clim. 3, 30 (2021).
Google Scholar 
4.Seddon, N. et al. Getting the message right on nature-based solutions to climate change. Glob. Change Biol. 27, 1518–1546 (2021).
Google Scholar 
5.Griscom, B. W. et al. We need both natural and energy solutions to stabilize our climate. Glob. Change Biol. 25, 1889–1890 (2019).
Google Scholar 
6.Fargione, J. et al. Natural climate solutions for the United States. Sci. Adv. 4, eaat1869 (2018).
Google Scholar 
7.Drever, C. R. et al. Natural climate solutions for Canada. Sci. Adv. 7, eabd6034 (2021).CAS 

Google Scholar 
8.Griscom, B. W. et al. Natural climate solutions. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, 11645–11650 (2017).CAS 

Google Scholar 
9.Fuss, S. et al. Negative emissions—Part 2: costs, potentials and side effects. Environ. Res. Lett. 13, 63002 (2018).
Google Scholar 
10.Gregorio, N. et al. in Enhancing Food Security Through Forest Landscape Restoration: Lessons from Burkina Faso, Brazil, Guatemala, Viet Nam, Ghana, Ethiopia and Philippines (eds Kumar, C. et al.) 174–217 (IUCN, 2015).11.Meyer, J. M. Gifford Pinchot, John Muir, and the boundaries of politics in American thought. Polity 30, 267–284 (1997).
Google Scholar 
12.Standard on Biodiversity Offsets (BBOP, 2012).13.Performance Standard 6: Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Management of Natural Resources (IFC, 2012).14.Arlidge, W. N. S. et al. A global mitigation hierarchy for nature conservation. Bioscience 68, 336–347 (2018).
Google Scholar 
15.Science-Based Targets for Nature: Initial Guidance for Business (Science Based Targets Network, 2020).16.Seddon, N. et al. Understanding the value and limits of nature-based solutions to climate change and other global challenges. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 375, 20190120 (2020).
Google Scholar 
17.Ellis, P. W. et al. Reduced-impact logging for climate change mitigation (RIL-C) can halve selective logging emissions from tropical forests. Ecol. Manag. 438, 255–266 (2019).
Google Scholar 
18.Martin, D. M. Ecological restoration should be redefined for the twenty-first century. Restor. Ecol. 25, 668–673 (2017).
Google Scholar 
19.Veldman, J. W. et al. Where tree planting and forest expansion are bad for biodiversity and ecosystem services. Bioscience 65, 1011–1018 (2015).
Google Scholar 
20.Supporting Canadians and Fighting COVID-19 (Department of Finance Canada, 2020).21.Roe, S. et al. Contribution of the land sector to a 1.5 °C world. Nat. Clim. Change 9, 817–828 (2019).
Google Scholar 
22.Seddon, N. et al. Nature-Based Solutions in Nationally Determined Contributions: Synthesis and Recommendations for Enhancing Climate Ambition and Action by 2020 (IUCN, 2019).23.Carbon Removal Corporate Action Tracker (Institute for Carbon Removal Law and Policy, accessed 6 July 2021); https://research.american.edu/carbonremoval/2020/05/07/carbon-removal-corporate-action-tracker/24.Pendrill, F. et al. Agricultural and forestry trade drives large share of tropical deforestation emissions. Glob. Environ. Change 56, 1–10 (2019).
Google Scholar 
25.Goal 1 Assessment: Striving to End Natural Forest Loss (NYDF Progress Assessment Secretariat, 2020).26.Smith, B. One year later: The path to carbon negative—a progress report on our climate ‘moonshot’. Microsoft Blog (28 January 2021); https://blogs.microsoft.com/blog/2021/01/28/one-year-later-the-path-to-carbon-negative-a-progress-report-on-our-climate-moonshot/27.Ward, C. et al. Smallholder perceptions of land restoration activities: rewetting tropical peatland oil palm areas in Sumatra. Indonesia. Reg. Environ. Change 21, 1 (2020).
Google Scholar 
28.Jacobson, M. & Ham, C. The (un)broken promise of agroforestry: a case study of improved fallows in Zambia. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 22, 8247–8260 (2020).
Google Scholar 
29.West, T. A. P., Börner, J., Sills, E. O. & Kontoleon, A. Overstated carbon emission reductions from voluntary REDD+ projects in the Brazilian Amazon. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci USA 117, 24188–24194 (2020).CAS 

Google Scholar 
30.Cook-Patton, S. C. et al. Lower cost and more feasible options to restore forest cover in the contiguous United States for climate mitigation. One Earth 3, 739–752 (2020).
Google Scholar 
31.Petersen, S. O., Højberg, O., Poulsen, M., Schwab, C. & Eriksen, J. Methanogenic community changes, and emissions of methane and other gases, during storage of acidified and untreated pig slurry. J. Appl. Microbiol. 117, 160–172 (2014).CAS 

Google Scholar 
32.Günther, A. et al. Prompt rewetting of drained peatlands reduces climate warming despite methane emissions. Nat. Commun. 11, 1644 (2020).
Google Scholar 
33.Qin, Z. et al. Delayed impact of natural climate solutions. Glob. Change Biol. 27, 215–217 (2021).
Google Scholar 
34.Anderegg, W. R. L. et al. Climate-driven risks to the climate mitigation potential of forests. Science 368, eaaz7005 (2020).CAS 

Google Scholar 
35.Pagiola, S., Honey-Rosés, J. & Freire-González, J. Assessing the permanence of land-use change induced by payments for environmental services: evidence from Nicaragua. Trop. Conserv. Sci. https://doi.org/10.1177/1940082920922676 (2020).36.Tseng, T.-W. J. et al. Influence of land tenure interventions on human well-being and environmental outcomes. Nat. Sustain. 4, 242–251 (2021).
Google Scholar 
37.Smith, P. et al. Impacts of land-based greenhouse gas removal options on ecosystem services and the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 44, 255–286 (2019).
Google Scholar 
38.Nunez, S., Verboom, J. & Alkemade, R. Assessing land-based mitigation implications for biodiversity. Environ. Sci. Policy 106, 68–76 (2020).
Google Scholar 
39.Chausson, A. et al. Mapping the effectiveness of nature-based solutions for climate change adaptation. Glob. Change Biol. 26, 6134–6155 (2020).
Google Scholar 
40.Infield, M., Entwistle, A., Anthem, H., Mugisha, A. & Phillips, K. Reflections on cultural values approaches to conservation: lessons from 20 years of implementation. Oryx 52, 220–230 (2018).
Google Scholar 
41.Rosenstock, T. S. et al. A planetary health perspective on agroforestry in sub-Saharan Africa. One Earth 1, 330–344 (2019).
Google Scholar 
42.Garrett, H. E. et al. Hardwood silvopasture management in North America. Agrofor. Syst. 61, 21–33 (2004).
Google Scholar 
43.Kroeger, T. et al. Returns on investment in watershed conservation: application of a best practices analytical framework to the Rio Camboriú Water Producer program, Santa Catarina, Brazil. Sci. Total Environ. 657, 1368–1381 (2019).CAS 

Google Scholar 
44.Lamb, D., Erskine, P. D. & Parrotta, J. A. Restoration of degraded tropical forest landscapes. Science 310, 1628–1632 (2005).CAS 

Google Scholar 
45.Ferreira, J. et al. Carbon-focused conservation may fail to protect the most biodiverse tropical forests. Nat. Clim. Change 8, 744–749 (2018).CAS 

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

Google Scholar 
47.Wilson, S. J., Schelhas, J., Grau, R., Nanni, A. S. & Sloan, S. Forest ecosystem-service transitions: the ecological dimensions of the forest transition. Ecol. Soc. 22, 38 (2017).
Google Scholar 
48.Funk, J. M. et al. Securing the climate benefits of stable forests. Clim. Policy 19, 845–860 (2019).
Google Scholar 
49.Keith, H. et al. Evaluating nature-based solutions for climate mitigation and conservation requires comprehensive carbon accounting. Sci. Total Environ. 769, 144341 (2021).CAS 

Google Scholar 
50.Moomaw, W. R., Masino, S. A. & Faison, E. K. Intact forests in the United States: proforestation mitigates climate change and serves the greatest good. Front. For. Glob. Change 2, 27 (2019).
Google Scholar 
51.Hiraishi, T. et al. 2013 Supplement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Wetlands (WMO, 2013).52.Goldstein, A. et al. Protecting irrecoverable carbon in Earth’s ecosystems. Nat. Clim. Change 10, 287–295 (2020).CAS 

Google Scholar 
53.Griscom, B. W. et al. National mitigation potential from natural climate solutions in the tropics. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 375, 20190126 (2020).CAS 

Google Scholar 
54.Busch, J. et al. Potential for low-cost carbon dioxide removal through tropical reforestation. Nat. Clim. Change 9, 463–466 (2019).CAS 

Google Scholar 
55.Vargas Zeppetello, L. R. et al. Large scale tropical deforestation drives extreme warming. Environ. Res. Lett. 15, 84012 (2020).
Google Scholar 
56.Spalding, M. D. et al. The role of ecosystems in coastal protection: adapting to climate change and coastal hazards. Ocean Coast. Manag. 90, 50–57 (2014).
Google Scholar 
57.Watson, J. E. M. et al. The exceptional value of intact forest ecosystems. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2, 599–610 (2018).
Google Scholar 
58.Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES, 2019).59.Dobson, A. P. et al. Ecology and economics for pandemic prevention. Science 369, 379–381 (2020).CAS 

Google Scholar 
60.Streck, C. REDD+ and leakage: debunking myths and promoting integrated solutions. Clim. Policy 21, 843–852 (2021).
Google Scholar 
61.Brancalion, P. H. S. et al. The cost of restoring carbon stocks in Brazil’s Atlantic Forest. Land Degrad. Dev. 32, 830–841 (2021).
Google Scholar 
62.Bustamante-Sánchez, M. A. & Armesto, J. J. Seed limitation during early forest succession in a rural landscape on Chiloé Island, Chile: implications for temperate forest restoration. J. Appl. Ecol. 49, 1103–1112 (2012).
Google Scholar 
63.Koch, A., Brierley, C. & Lewis, S. L. Effects of Earth system feedbacks on the potential mitigation of large-scale tropical forest restoration. Biogeosciences 18, 2627–2647 (2021).CAS 

Google Scholar 
64.Zickfeld, K., Azevedo, D., Mathesius, S. & Matthews, H. D. Asymmetry in the climate–carbon cycle response to positive and negative CO2 emissions. Nat. Clim. Change 11, 613–617 (2021).CAS 

Google Scholar 
65.Johnson, K. A. et al. A benefit–cost analysis of floodplain land acquisition for US flood damage reduction. Nat. Sustain. 3, 56–62 (2020).
Google Scholar 
66.Nolte, C. High-resolution land value maps reveal underestimation of conservation costs in the United States. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117, 29577–29583 (2020).CAS 

Google Scholar 
67.Reetz, H., Heffer, P. & Bruulsema, T. in Managing Water and Fertilizer for Sustainable Agricultural Intensification (eds Drechsel, P. et al.) 65–86 (IFA, IWMI, IPNI and IPI, 2015).68.Sharma, P. et al. The role of cover crops towards sustainable soil health and agriculture—a review paper. Am. J. Plant Sci. 09, 1935–1951 (2018).CAS 

Google Scholar 
69.Bergeron, M. et al. Reduced soil nutrient leaching following the establishment of tree-based intercropping systems in eastern Canada. Agrofor. Syst. 83, 321–330 (2011).
Google Scholar 
70.Moore, A. A. & Palmer, M. A. Invertebrate biodiveristy in agricultural and urban headwater streams: implications for conservation and management. Ecol. Appl. 15, 1169–1177 (2005).
Google Scholar 
71.Martin, M. P. et al. People plant trees for utility more often than for biodiversity or carbon. Biol. Conserv. 261, 109224 (2021).
Google Scholar 
72.Mendes, T. P., de Assis Montag, L. F., Alvarado, S. T. & Juen, L. Assessing habitat quality on alpha and beta diversity of Odonata larvae (Insect) in logging areas in Amazon forest. Hydrobiologia 848, 1147–1161 (2021).
Google Scholar 
73.Crouzeilles, R. et al. Achieving cost-effective landscape-scale forest restoration through targeted natural regeneration. Conserv. Lett. 13, e12709 (2020).
Google Scholar 
74.Gilroy, J. J. et al. Cheap carbon and biodiversity co-benefits from forest regeneration in a hotspot of endemism. Nat. Clim. Change 4, 503–507 (2014).
Google Scholar 
75.Riahi, K. et al. The Shared Socioeconomic Pathways and their energy, land use, and greenhouse gas emissions implications: an overview. Glob. Environ. Change 42, 153–168 (2017).
Google Scholar 
76.Strassburg, B. B. N. et al. Strategic approaches to restoring ecosystems can triple conservation gains and halve costs. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 3, 62–70 (2019).
Google Scholar 
77.Taillardat, P., Thompson, B. S., Garneau, M., Trottier, K. & Friess, D. A. Climate change mitigation potential of wetlands and the cost-effectiveness of their restoration. Interface Focus 10, 20190129 (2020).
Google Scholar 
78.Xu, S., Liu, X., Li, X. & Tian, C. Soil organic carbon changes following wetland restoration: a global meta-analysis. Geoderma 353, 89–96 (2019).CAS 

Google Scholar 
79.Holl, K. D. & Brancalion, P. H. S. Tree planting is not a simple solution. Science 368, 580–581 (2020).CAS 

Google Scholar 
80.Kroeger, T., McDonald, R. I., Boucher, T., Zhang, P. & Wang, L. Where the people are: current trends and future potential targeted investments in urban trees for PM10 and temperature mitigation in 27 U.S. cities. Landsc. Urban Plan. 177, 277–240 (2018).
Google Scholar 
81.McDonald, R. I., Kroeger, T., Zhang, P. & Hamel, P. The value of US urban tree cover for reducing heat-related health impacts and electricity consumption. Ecosystems 23, 137–150 (2020).
Google Scholar 
82.Heris, M. et al. Piloting urban ecosystem accounting for the United States. Ecosyst. Serv. 48, 101226 (2021).
Google Scholar 
83.Ellison, D. et al. Trees, forests and water: cool insights for a hot world. Glob. Environ. Change 43, 51–61 (2017).
Google Scholar 
84.Li, R. et al. Time and space catch up with restoration programs that ignore ecosystem service trade-offs. Sci. Adv. 7, eabf8650 (2021).
Google Scholar 
85.Gaveau, D. L. A. et al. Rise and fall of forest loss and industrial plantations in Borneo (2000–2017). Conserv. Lett. 12, e12622 (2019).
Google Scholar 
86.Griscom, B. W., Goodman, R. C., Burivalova, Z. & Putz, F. E. Carbon and biodiversity impacts of intensive versus extensive tropical forestry. Conserv. Lett. 11, e12362 (2018).
Google Scholar 
87.Gabon’s Proposed National RED+ Forest Reference Level (Gabonese Republic, 2021).88.Umunay, P., Gregoire, T., Gopalakrishna, T., Ellis, P. & Putz, F. Selective logging emissions and potential emission reductions from reduced-impact logging in the Congo Basin. Ecol. Manag. 437, 360–371 (2019).
Google Scholar 
89.Natural Climate Solutions World Atlas (Nature4Climate, accessed 9 December 2020); https://nature4climate.org/n4c-mapper/90.Dave, R. et al. Second Bonn Challenge Progress Report: Application of the Barometer in 2018 (IUCN, 2019); https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.CH.2019.06.en91.Kremen, C. & Merenlender, A. M. Landscapes that work for biodiversity and people. Science 362, eaau6020 (2018).
Google Scholar 
92.Seymour, F. Seeing the forests as well as the (trillion) trees in corporate climate strategies. One Earth 2, 390–393 (2020).
Google Scholar 
93.Kronenberg, J. & Mieszkowicz, J. Planting trees for publicity—how much are they worth? Sustainability 3, 1022–1034 (2011).
Google Scholar 
94.Microsoft Carbon Removal: Lessons from an Early Corporate Purchase (Microsoft, 2021).95.Toor, I. A., Smith, E. G., Whalen, J. K. & Naseem, A. Tree-based intercropping in southern Ontario, Canada. Can. J. Agric. Econ. 60, 141–154 (2012).
Google Scholar 
96.Watson, J. E. M., Dudley, N., Segan, D. B. & Hockings, M. The performance and potential of protected areas. Nature 515, 67–73 (2014).CAS 

Google Scholar 
97.zu Ermgassen, S. O. S. E. et al. The ecological outcomes of biodiversity offsets under “no net loss” policies: a global review. Conserv. Lett. 12, e12664 (2019).
Google Scholar 
98.Adoption of the Paris Agreement FCCC/CP/2015/L.9/Rev.1 (UNFCCC, 2015). More

1.The State of Food Insecurity in the World—How Does International Price Volatility Affect Domestic Economies and Food Security? (FAO, 2011).2.Catchpoole, D. W. & Blair, G. Forage tree legumes I. Productivity and N economy of leucaena, gliricidia, calliandra and sesbania and tree/green panic mixtures. Aust. J. Agric. Res 41, 521–530 (1990).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
3.Xu, Z. H., Saffigna, P. G., Myers, R. J. K. & Chapman, A. L. Nitrogen cycling in leucaena (Leucaena lecuocephala) alley cropping in semiarid tropics. 1. Mineralization of nitrogen from leucaena residues. Plant Soil 148, 63–72 (1993).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
4.Beer, J., Muschler, R., Kass, D. & Somarriba, E. Shade management in coffee and cacao plantations. Agrofor. Syst. 38, 139–164 (1998).Article 

Google Scholar 
5.Snoeck, D., Zapata, F. & Domenach, A.-M. Isotopic evidence of the transfer of nitrogen fixed by legumes to coffee trees. Biotechnol. Agron. Soc. Environ. 4, 95–100 (2000).CAS 

Google Scholar 
6.Sierra, J. & Nygren, P. Transfer of N fixed by a legume tree to the associated grass in a tropical silvopastoral system. Soil Biol. Biochem. 38, 1893–1903 (2006).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
7.He, X. H., Critchley, C. & Bledsoe, C. Nitrogen transfer within and between plants through common mycorrhizal networks (CMNs). Crit. Rev. Plant Sci. 22, 531–567 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
8.Jalonen, R., Nygren, P. & Sierra, J. Transfer of nitrogen from a tropical legume tree to an associated fodder grass via root exudation and common mycelial networks. Plant Cell Environ. 32, 1366–1376 (2009).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
9.Brundrett, M. C. & Tedersoo, L. Evolutionary history of mycorrhizal symbioses and global host plant diversity. New Phytol. 220, 1108–1115 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
10.Smith, S. E. & Read, D. J. Mycorrhizal Symbiosis 3rd edn (Academic Press, 2008).11.Giovannetti, M., Sbrana, C., Avio, L. & Strani, P. Patterns of below-ground plant interconnections established by means of arbuscular mycorrhizal networks. New Phytol. 164, 175–181 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
12.Newman, E. I. & Ritz, K. Evidence on the pathways of phosphorus transfer between vesicular–arbuscular mycorrhizal plants. New Phytol. 104, 77–87 (1986).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
13.Mikkelsen, B. L., Rosendahl, S. & Jakobsen, I. Underground resource allocation between individual networks of mycorrhizal fungi. New Phytol. 4, 890–898 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
14.Saka, A. R., Bunderson, W. T., Itimu, O. A., Phombeya, H. S. K. & Mbekeani, Y. The effects of Acacia albida on soils and maize grain yields under smallholder farm conditions in Malawi. For. Ecol. Manage. 64, 217–230 (1994).Article 

Google Scholar 
15.Rhoades, C. Seasonal pattern of nitrogen mineralization and soil moisture beneath Faidherbia albida (syn Acacia albida) in central Malawi. Agrofor. Syst. 29, 133–145 (1995).Article 

Google Scholar 
16.Sileshi, G. W. et al. in Encyclopedia of Agriculture and Food Systems (ed. van Alfen, N.) 222–234 (Elsevier, 2014).17.Yengwe, J., Gebremikael, M. T., Buchan, D., Lungu, O. & De Neve, S. Effects of Faidherbia albida canopy and leaf litter on soil microbial communities and nitrogen mineralization in selected Zambian soils. Agrofor. Syst. 92, 349–363 (2018).
Google Scholar 
18.Yengwe, J., Amalia, O., Lungu, O. I. & De Neve, S. Quantifying nutrient deposition and yield levels of maize (Zea mays) under Faidherbia albida agroforestry system in Zambia. Eur. J. Agron. 99, 148–155 (2018).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
19.Sida, T. S., Baudron, F., Ndoli, A., Tirfessa, D. & Giller, K. E. Should fertilizer recommendations be adapted to parkland agroforestry systems? Case studies from Ethiopia and Rwanda. Plant Soil 453, 173–188 (2020).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
20.Umar, B. B., Aune, J. B. & Lungu, O. I. Effects of Faidherbia albida on the fertility of soil in smallholder conservation agriculture systems in eastern and southern Zambia. Afr. J. Agric. Res. 8, 173–183 (2013).
Google Scholar 
21.Hadgu, K. M., Kooistra, L., Rossing, W. A. H. & van Bruggen, A. H. C. Assessing the effect of Faidherbia albida based land use systems on barley yield at field and regional scale in the highlands of Tigray, Northern Ethiopia. Food Security 1, 337–350 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
22.Dalpé, Y., Diop, T. A., Plenchette, C. & Gueye, M. Glomales species associated with surface and deep rhizosphere of Faidherbia albida in Senegal. Mycorrhiza 10, 125–129 (2000).Article 

Google Scholar 
23.Boddey, R. M., Peoples, M. B., Palmer, B. & Dart, P. J. Use of the 15N natural abundance technique to quantify biological nitrogen fixation by woody perennials. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst. 57, 235–270 (2000).Article 

Google Scholar 
24.Oberson, A. et al. Symbiotic N2 fixation by soybean in organic and conventional cropping systems estimated by 15N dilution and 15N natural abundance. Plant Soil 290, 69–83 (2007).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
25.Snapp, S., Borden, H. & Rohrbach, D. Improving nitrogen efficiency: lessons from Malawi and Michigan. Sci. World 1, 42–48 (2001).
Google Scholar 
26.Akinnifesi, F. K., Wakumba, W. & Kwesiga, F. R. Sustainable maize production using gliricidia/maize intercropping in southern Malawi. Exp. Agric. 42, 441–457 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
27.Tovihoudji, P. G., Irenikatché Akponikpè, P. B., Agbossou, E. K., Bertin, P. & Bielders, C. L. Fertilizer microdosing enhances maize yields but may exacerbate nutrient mining in maize cropping systems in northern Benin. Field Crops Res. 213, 130–142 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
28.Hill, P. W. et al. Angiosperm symbioses with non-mycorrhizal fungal partners enhance N acquisition from ancient organic matter in a warming maritime Antarctic. Ecol. Lett. 22, 2111–2119 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
29.Bueno de Mesquita, C. P. et al. Patterns of root colonization by arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi and dark septate endophytes across a mostly-unvegetated, high-elevation landscape. Fungal Ecol. 36, 63–74 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
30.Alexandre, D. Y. & Ouedraogo, S. J. in Faidherbia albida in the West African Semi-arid Tropics: Proceedings of a Workshop (ed. Vandenbeldt, R. J.) 107–110 (International Centre for Research in Agroforestry, 1992).31.Jones, A. et al. Soil Atlas of Africa (European Commission, 2013).32.Dierks, J. et al. Trees enhance abundance of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi, soil structure, and nutrient retention in low-input maize cropping systems. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 318, 107487 (2021).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
33.Mungai, L. M. et al. Smallholder farms and the potential for sustainable intensification. Front. Plant Sci. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2016.01720 (2016).34.Smith, S. E. & Smith, F. A. Roles of arbuscular mycorrhizas in plant nutrition and growth: new paradigms from cellular to ecosystem scales. Annu. Rev. Plant Biol. 62, 227–250 (2011).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
35.Marschner, H. & Dell, B. Nutrient uptake in mycorrhizal symbiosis. Plant Soil 159, 89–102 (1994).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
36.Gryndler, M. et al. Appropriate nonmycorrhizal controls in arbuscular mycorrhiza research: a microbiome perspective. Mycorrhiza 28, 435–450 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
37.Rillig, M. C. et al. Suitability of mycorrhiza-defective mutant/wildtype plant pairs (Solanum lycopersicum L. cv Micro-Tom) to address questions in mycorrhizal soil ecology. Plant Soil 308, 267–275 (2008).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
38.Koide, R. T. & Li, M. Appropriate controls for vesicular–arbuscular mycorrhiza research. New Phytol. 111, 35–44 (1989).Article 

Google Scholar 
39.Fitter, A. H. & Nichols, R. The use of benomyl to control infection by vesicular–arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi. New Phytol. 110, 201–206 (1988).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
40.Cavagnaro, T. R., Smith, F. A. & Smith, S. E. Interactions between arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi and a mycorrhiza-defective mutant tomato: does a noninfective fungus alter the ability of an infective fungus to colonise the roots—and vice versa? New Phytol. 164, 485–491 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
41.Carey, P. D., Fitter, A. H. & Watkinson, A. R. A field study using the fungicide benomyl to investigate the effect of mycorrhizal fungi on plant fitness. Oecologia 90, 550–555 (1992).Article 

Google Scholar 
42.Merryweather, J. & Fitter, A. Phosphorus nutrition of an obligately mycorrhizal plant treated with the fungicide benomyl in the field. New Phytol. 132, 307–311 (1996).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
43.Shinners, K. J. & Binversie, B. N. Fractional yield and moisture of corn stover biomass produced in northern US Corn Belt. Biomass Bioenergy 31, 576–584 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
44.R Core Team R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2020); https://www.R-project.org/45.Quinn, G. P. & Keough, M. J. Experimental Design and Data Analysis for Biologists (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2002). More

This manuscript has been authored by UT-Battelle, LLC, under contract DE-AC05-00OR22725 with the US Department of Energy (DOE). The US government retains and the publisher, by accepting the article for publication, acknowledges that the US government retains a nonexclusive, paid-up, irrevocable, worldwide licence to publish or reproduce the published form of this manuscript, or allow others to do so, for US government purposes. The DOE will provide public access to these results of federally sponsored research in accordance with the DOE Public Access Plan (http://energy.gov/downloads/doe-public-access-plan). More

1.Rustad, L. E., Huntington, T. G. & Boone, R. D. Controls on soil respiration: implications for climate change. Biogeochemistry 48, 1–6 (2000).
Google Scholar 
2.Smith, P. How long before a change in soil organic carbon can be detected? Glob. Change Biol. 10, 1878–1883 (2004).
Google Scholar 
3.Sanderman, J., Hengl, T. & Fiske, G. J. Soil carbon debt of 12,000 years of human land use. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. 114, 9575 (2017).CAS 

Google Scholar 
4.Schimel, J. & Schaeffer, S. Microbial control over carbon cycling in soil. Front. Microbiol. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2012.00348 (2012).5.Georgiou, K., Abramoff, R. Z., Harte, J., Riley, W. J. & Torn, M. S. Microbial community-level regulation explains soil carbon responses to long-term litter manipulations. Nat. Commun. 8, 1223 (2017).
Google Scholar 
6.Liang, C., Schimel, J. P. & Jastrow, J. D. The importance of anabolism in microbial control over soil carbon storage. Nat. Microbiol. 2, 17105 (2017).CAS 

Google Scholar 
7.Malik, A. A. et al. Land use driven change in soil pH affects microbial carbon cycling processes. Nat. Commun. 9, 3591 (2018).
Google Scholar 
8.Kästner, M. & Miltner, A. In The Future of Soil Carbon (eds. Garcia, C. et al.) 125-163 (Academic Press, 2018).9.Mikutta, R., Kleber, M., Torn, M. S. & Jahn, R. Stabilization of soil organic matter: Association with minerals or chemical recalcitrance? Biogeochemistry 77, 25–56 (2006).CAS 

Google Scholar 
10.Liang, C., Amelung, W., Lehmann, J. & Kästner, M. Quantitative assessment of microbial necromass contribution to soil organic matter. Glob. Change Biol. 25, 3578–3590 (2019).
Google Scholar 
11.Liang, C. & Balser, T. C. Microbial production of recalcitrant organic matter in global soils: implications for productivity and climate policy. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 9, 75–75 (2011).CAS 

Google Scholar 
12.Miltner, A., Bombach, P., Schmidt-Brücken, B. & Kästner, M. SOM genesis: microbial biomass as a significant source. Biogeochemistry 111, 41–55 (2012).CAS 

Google Scholar 
13.Schweigert, M., Herrmann, S., Miltner, A., Fester, T. & Kästner, M. Fate of ectomycorrhizal fungal biomass in a soil bioreactor system and its contribution to soil organic matter formation. Soil Biol. Biochem. 88, 120–127 (2015).CAS 

Google Scholar 
14.Kallenbach, C. M., Frey, S. D. & Grandy, A. S. Direct evidence for microbial-derived soil organic matter formation and its ecophysiological controls. Nat. Commun. 7, 13630 (2016).CAS 

Google Scholar 
15.Khan, K. S., Mack, R., Castillo, X., Kaiser, M. & Joergensen, R. G. Microbial biomass, fungal and bacterial residues, and their relationships to the soil organic matter C/N/P/S ratios. Geoderma 271, 115–123 (2016).CAS 

Google Scholar 
16.Simpson, A. J., Simpson, M. J., Smith, E. & Kelleher, B. P. Microbially derived inputs to soil organic matter: Are current estimates too low? Environ. Sci. Technol. 41, 8070–8076 (2007).CAS 

Google Scholar 
17.Schmidt, M. W. I. et al. Persistence of soil organic matter as an ecosystem property. Nature 478, 49–56 (2011).CAS 

Google Scholar 
18.Zhu, X., Jackson, R. D., DeLucia, E. H., Tiedje, J. M. & Liang, C. The soil microbial carbon pump: From conceptual insights to empirical assessments. Glob. Change Biol. 26, 6032–6039 (2020).
Google Scholar 
19.Mau, R. L. et al. Linking soil bacterial biodiversity and soil carbon stability. ISME J. 9, 1477–1480 (2015).CAS 

Google Scholar 
20.Kim, M., Heo, E., Kang, H. & Adams, J. Changes in soil bacterial community structure with increasing disturbance frequency. Microb. Ecol. 66, 171–181 (2013).
Google Scholar 
21.Schimel, J. P. & Schaeffer, S. M. Microbial control over carbon cycling in soil. Front. Microbiol. 3, 348 (2012).CAS 

Google Scholar 
22.Zhao, S. et al. Changes in soil microbial community, enzyme activities and organic matter fractions under long-term straw return in north-central China. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 216, 82–88 (2016).CAS 

Google Scholar 
23.Liang, C. & Zhu, X. The soil microbial carbon pump as a new concept for terrestrial carbon sequestration. Sci. China Earth Sci. 64, 545–558 (2021).CAS 

Google Scholar 
24.Liu, W., Zhang, Z. H. E. & Wan, S. Predominant role of water in regulating soil and microbial respiration and their responses to climate change in a semiarid grassland. Glob. Change Biol. 15, 184–195 (2009).
Google Scholar 
25.Crowther, T. W. et al. Environmental stress response limits microbial necromass contributions to soil organic carbon. Soil Biol. Biochem. 85, 153–161 (2015).CAS 

Google Scholar 
26.Ma, T. et al. Divergent accumulation of microbial necromass and plant lignin components in grassland soils. Nat. Commun. 9, 3480 (2018).
Google Scholar 
27.Chen, X. et al. Contrasting pathways of carbon sequestration in paddy and upland soils. Glob. Change Biol. 27, 2478–2490 (2021).
Google Scholar 
28.Allison, S. D., Wallenstein, M. D. & Bradford, M. A. Soil-carbon response to warming dependent on microbial physiology. Nat. Geosci. 3, 336–340 (2010).CAS 

Google Scholar 
29.Jin, J., Wood, J., Franks, A., Armstrong, R. & Tang, C. Long-term CO2 enrichment alters the diversity and function of the microbial community in soils with high organic carbon. Soil Biol. Biochem. 144, 107780 (2020).CAS 

Google Scholar 
30.Prommer, J. et al. Increased microbial growth, biomass, and turnover drive soil organic carbon accumulation at higher plant diversity. Glob. Change Biol. 26, 669–681 (2020).
Google Scholar 
31.Buckeridge, K. M. et al. Sticky dead microbes: rapid abiotic retention of microbial necromass in soil. Soil Biol. Biochem. 149, 107929 (2020).CAS 

Google Scholar 
32.Joergensen, R. G. Amino sugars as specific indices for fungal and bacterial residues in soil. Biol. Fertil. Soils 54, 559–568 (2018).CAS 

Google Scholar 
33.Zhang, X. & Amelung, W. Gas chromatographic determination of muramic acid, glucosamine, mannosamine, and galactosamine in soils. Soil Biol. Biochem. 28, 1201–1206 (1996).CAS 

Google Scholar 
34.Amelung, W., Brodowski, S., Sandhage-Hofmann, A. & Bol, R. In Advances in Agronomy vol. 100 155–250 (Academic Press, 2008).35.Glaser, B., Turrión, M. A.-B. & Alef, K. Amino sugars and muramic acid—biomarkers for soil microbial community structure analysis. Soil Biol. Biochem. 36, 399–407 (2004).CAS 

Google Scholar 
36.Roberts, P., Bol, R. & Jones, D. L. Free amino sugar reactions in soil in relation to soil carbon and nitrogen cycling. Soil Biol. Biochem. 39, 3081–3092 (2007).CAS 

Google Scholar 
37.Ni, X. et al. A quantitative assessment of amino sugars in soil profiles. Soil Biol. Biochem. 143, 107762 (2020).CAS 

Google Scholar 
38.Amelung, W., Brodowski, S., Sandhage-Hofmann, A. & Bol, R. Combining biomarker with stable isotope analyses for assessing the transformation and turnover of soil organic matter. Adv. Agron. 100, 155–250 (2008).CAS 

Google Scholar 
39.Appuhn, A. & Joergensen, R. G. Microbial colonisation of roots as a function of plant species. Soil Biol. Biochem. 38, 1040–1051 (2006).CAS 

Google Scholar 
40.Ding, X. et al. Warming increases microbial residue contribution to soil organic carbon in an alpine meadow. Soil Biol. Biochem. 135, 13–19 (2019).CAS 

Google Scholar 
41.Lladó, S., López-Mondéjar, R. & Baldrian, P. Forest soil bacteria: diversity, involvement in ecosystem processes, and response to global change. Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. 81, e00063–00016 (2017).
Google Scholar 
42.Ramankutty, N., Evan, A. T., Monfreda, C. & Foley, J. A. Farming the planet: 1. Geographic distribution of global agricultural lands in the year 2000. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles https://doi.org/10.1029/2007GB002952 (2008).43.Jobbágy, E. G. & Jackson, R. B. The vertical distribution of soil organic carbon and its relation to climate and vegetation. Ecol. Appl. 10, 423–436 (2000).
Google Scholar 
44.Davidson, E. A. & Janssens, I. A. Temperature sensitivity of soil carbon decomposition and feedbacks to climate change. Nature 440, 165–173 (2006).CAS 

Google Scholar 
45.McGill, W. B. & Cole, C. V. Comparative aspects of cycling of organic C, N, S and P through soil organic matter. Geoderma 26, 267–286 (1981).CAS 

Google Scholar 
46.Wardle, D. A. Drivers of decoupling in drylands. Nature 502, 628–629 (2013).CAS 

Google Scholar 
47.Zhang, B., Liang, C., He, H. & Zhang, X. Variations in soil microbial communities and residues along an altitude gradient on the Northern Slope of Changbai Mountain, China. PLoS ONE 8, e66184 (2013).CAS 

Google Scholar 
48.Shao, P., Liang, C., Lynch, L., Xie, H. & Bao, X. Reforestation accelerates soil organic carbon accumulation: evidence from microbial biomarkers. Soil Biol. Biochem. 131, 182–190 (2019).CAS 

Google Scholar 
49.Vicente-Serrano, S. M., Zouber, A., Lasanta, T. & Pueyo, Y. Dryness is accelerating degradation of vulnerable shrublands in semiarid Mediterranean environments. Ecol. Monogr. 82, 407–428 (2012).
Google Scholar 
50.Whitford, W. G. & Duval, B. D. Ecology of Desert Systems (Academic Press, 2019).51.Delgado-Baquerizo, M. et al. Decoupling of soil nutrient cycles as a function of aridity in global drylands. Nature 502, 672–676 (2013).CAS 

Google Scholar 
52.Manzoni, S., Taylor, P., Richter, A., Porporato, A. & Ågren, G. I. Environmental and stoichiometric controls on microbial carbon-use efficiency in soils. New Phytol. 196, 79–91 (2012).CAS 

Google Scholar 
53.McHugh, T. A. et al. Climate controls prokaryotic community composition in desert soils of the southwestern United States. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. https://doi.org/10.1093/femsec/fix116 (2017).54.De Boeck, H. J. & Verbeeck, H. Drought-associated changes in climate and their relevance for ecosystem experiments and models. Biogeosciences 8, 1121–1130 (2011).
Google Scholar 
55.Seneviratne, S. I., Lüthi, D., Litschi, M. & Schär, C. Land–atmosphere coupling and climate change in Europe. Nature 443, 205–209 (2006).CAS 

Google Scholar 
56.He, N., Chen, Q., Han, X., Yu, G. & Li, L. Warming and increased precipitation individually influence soil carbon sequestration of Inner Mongolian grasslands, China. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 158, 184–191 (2012).
Google Scholar 
57.Reichstein, M. et al. Climate extremes and the carbon cycle. Nature 500, 287–295 (2013).CAS 

Google Scholar 
58.Jansson, J. K. & Hofmockel, K. S. Soil microbiomes and climate change. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 18, 35–46 (2020).CAS 

Google Scholar 
59.Zhang, X. et al. Links between microbial biomass and necromass components in the top- and subsoils of temperate grasslands along an aridity gradient. Geoderma 379, 114623 (2020).CAS 

Google Scholar 
60.Zhu, E. et al. Inactive and inefficient: Warming and drought effect on microbial carbon processing in alpine grassland at depth. Glob. Change Biol. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15541 (2021).61.Deng, L. et al. Drought effects on soil carbon and nitrogen dynamics in global natural ecosystems. Earth Sci. Rev. 214, 103501 (2021).CAS 

Google Scholar 
62.Moritz, L. K., Liang, C., Wagai, R., Kitayama, K. & Balser, T. C. Vertical distribution and pools of microbial residues in tropical forest soils formed from distinct parent materials. Biogeochemistry 92, 83–94 (2009).
Google Scholar 
63.Finzi, A. C. et al. Responses and feedbacks of coupled biogeochemical cycles to climate change: examples from terrestrial ecosystems. Front. Ecol. Environ. 9, 61–67 (2011).
Google Scholar 
64.Shao, P., Lynch, L., Xie, H., Bao, X. & Liang, C. Tradeoffs among microbial life history strategies influence the fate of microbial residues in subtropical forest soils. Soil Biol. Biochem. 153, 108112 (2021).CAS 

Google Scholar 
65.Zhu, E. et al. Inactive and inefficient: Warming and drought effect on microbial carbon processing in alpine grassland at depth. Glob. Change Biol. 27, 2241–2253 (2021).
Google Scholar 
66.Spohn, M. et al. Soil microbial carbon use efficiency and biomass turnover in a long-term fertilization experiment in a temperate grassland. Soil Biol. Biochem. 97, 168–175 (2016).CAS 

Google Scholar 
67.Jia, J. et al. Comparing microbial carbon sequestration and priming in the subsoil versus topsoil of a Qinghai-Tibetan alpine grassland. Soil Biol. Biochem. 104, 141–151 (2017).CAS 

Google Scholar 
68.Shao, P., Lynch, L., Xie, H., Bao, X. & Liang, C. Tradeoffs among microbial life history strategies influence the fate of microbial residues in subtropical forest soils. Soil Biol. Biochem. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2020.108112 (2021).69.Ding, X., Liang, C., Zhang, B., Yuan, Y. & Han, X. Higher rates of manure application lead to greater accumulation of both fungal and bacterial residues in macroaggregates of a clay soil. Soil Biol. Biochem. 84, 137–146 (2015).CAS 

Google Scholar 
70.Samson, M.-E. et al. Management practices differently affect particulate and mineral-associated organic matter and their precursors in arable soils. Soil Biol. Biochem. 148, 107867 (2020).CAS 

Google Scholar 
71.Luo, R. et al. Nutrient addition reduces carbon sequestration in a Tibetan grassland soil: disentangling microbial and physical controls. Soil Biol. Biochem. 144, 107764 (2020).CAS 

Google Scholar 
72.Castellano, M. J., Mueller, K. E., Olk, D. C., Sawyer, J. E. & Six, J. Integrating plant litter quality, soil organic matter stabilization, and the carbon saturation concept. Glob. Change Biol. 21, 3200–3209 (2015).
Google Scholar 
73.Cotrufo, M. F., Wallenstein, M. D., Boot, C. M., Denef, K. & Paul, E. The microbial efficiency-matrix stabilization (MEMS) framework integrates plant litter decomposition with soil organic matter stabilization: do labile plant inputs form stable soil organic matter? Glob. Change Biol. 19, 988–995 (2013).
Google Scholar 
74.Bahram, M. et al. Structure and function of the global topsoil microbiome. Nature 560, 233–237 (2018).CAS 

Google Scholar 
75.Larsen, K. S. et al. Reduced N cycling in response to elevated CO2, warming, and drought in a Danish heathland: synthesizing results of the CLIMAITE project after two years of treatments. Glob. Change Biol. 17, 1884–1899 (2011).
Google Scholar 
76.Cregger, M. A., McDowell, N. G., Pangle, R. E., Pockman, W. T. & Classen, A. T. The impact of precipitation change on nitrogen cycling in a semi-arid ecosystem. Funct. Ecol. 28, 1534–1544 (2014).
Google Scholar 
77.Buckeridge, K. M. et al. Environmental and microbial controls on microbial necromass recycling, an important precursor for soil carbon stabilization. Commun. Earth Environ. 1, 36 (2020).
Google Scholar 
78.Six, J., Frey, S. D., Thiet, R. K. & Batten, K. M. Bacterial and fungal contributions to carbon sequestration in agroecosystems. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 70, 555–569 (2006).CAS 

Google Scholar 
79.von Lutzow, M. et al. Stabilization of organic matter in temperate soils: mechanisms and their relevance under different soil conditions—a review. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 57, 426–445 (2006).
Google Scholar 
80.Lauer, F., Kösters, R., du Preez, C. C. & Amelung, W. Microbial residues as indicators of soil restoration in South African secondary pastures. Soil Biol. Biochem. 43, 787–794 (2011).CAS 

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

Google Scholar 
82.Blanco, H. & Lal, R. Principles of Soil Conservation and Management vol. 167169 (Springer, 2008).83.Marshall, K. J. A. R. O. P. Clay mineralogy in relation to survival of soil bacteria. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 13, 357–373 (1975).84.Zhiguo, H. et al. Thresholds in aridity and soil carbon-to-nitrogen ratio govern the accumulation of soil microbial residues. figshare, Dataset, https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.16749967.v1 (2021).85.Engelking, B., Flessa, H. & Joergensen, R. G. Shifts in amino sugar and ergosterol contents after addition of sucrose and cellulose to soil. Soil Biol. Biochem. 39, 2111–2118 (2007).CAS 

Google Scholar 
86.Breiman, L. Random forests. Mach. Learn. 45, 5–32 (2001).
Google Scholar 
87.Wei, C.-L. et al. Global patterns and predictions of seafloor biomass using random forests. PLoS ONE 5, e15323 (2011).
Google Scholar 
88.Liaw, A. & Wiener, M. J. R. N. Classification and regression by randomForest. R News 2, 18–22 (2002).89.Delgado-Baquerizo, M. et al. Microbial diversity drives multifunctionality in terrestrial ecosystems. Nat. Commun. 7, 10541 (2016).CAS 

Google Scholar 
90.Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H. & Müller, H. Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods Psychol. Res. Online 8, 23–74 (2003).91.Manzoni, S., Jackson, R. B., Trofymow, J. A. & Porporato, A. The global stoichiometry of litter nitrogen mineralization. Science 321, 684 (2008).CAS 

Google Scholar 
92.Berdugo, M. et al. Global ecosystem thresholds driven by aridity. Science 367, 787 (2020).CAS 

Google Scholar 
93.Groffman, P. M. et al. Ecological thresholds: the key to successful environmental management or an important concept with no practical application? Ecosystems 9, 1–13 (2006).
Google Scholar 
94.Fong, Y., Huang, Y., Gilbert, P. B. & Permar, S. R. chngpt: threshold regression model estimation and inference. BMC Bioinform. 18, 454 (2017).
Google Scholar  More

1.Hubbel, S. P. The Unified Neutral Theory of Biodiversity and Biogeography (Princeton, 2001).
Google Scholar 
2.Rosindell, J., Hubbell, S. P., He, F., Harmon, L. J. & Etienne, R. S. The case for ecological neutral theory. Trends Ecol. Evol. 27, 203–208 (2012).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
3.Diamond, J. M. Assembly of species communities. In Ecology and Evolution of Communities (eds. Cody, M. L. & Diamond, J. M.) 342–444 (Harvard University Press, 1975).4.Chase, J. M. & Leibold, M. A. Ecological Niches: Linking Classical and Contemporary Approaches (University of Chicago Press, 2003).
Google Scholar 
5.Götzenberger, L. et al. Ecological assembly rules in plant communities––Approaches, patterns and prospects. Biol. Rev. Camb. Philos. Soc. 87, 111–127 (2012).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
6.HilleRisLambers, J., Adler, P. B., Harpole, W. S., Levine, J. M. & Mayfield, M. M. Rethinking community assembly through the lens of coexistence theory. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 43, 227–248 (2012).
Google Scholar 
7.Adler, P. B., Fajardo, A., Kleinhesselink, A. R. & Kraft, N. J. B. Trait–based tests of coexistence mechanisms. Ecol. Lett. 16, 1294–1306 (2013).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
8.Lortie, C. J. et al. Rethinking plant community theory. Oikos 107, 433–438 (2004).
Google Scholar 
9.Vellend, M. Conceptual synthesis in community Ecology. Q. Rev. Biol. 85, 183–206 (2010).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
10.Vellend, M. et al. Assessing the relative importance of neutral stochasticity in ecological communities. Oikos 123, 1420–1430 (2014).
Google Scholar 
11.Escudero, A. & Valladares, F. Trait-based plant Ecology: Moving towards a unifying species coexistence theory: Features of the special section. Oecologia 180, 919–922 (2016).ADS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
12.Luzuriaga, A. L., Sánchez, A. M., Maestre, F. T. & Escudero, A. Assemblage of a semi-arid annual plant community: Abiotic and biotic filters act hierarchically. PLoS One 7, 1–9 (2012).
Google Scholar 
13.Bertness, M. D. & Callaway, R. Positive interactions in communities. Trends Ecol. Evol. 9, 187–191 (1994).
Google Scholar 
14.Kraft, N. J., Godoy, O. & Levine, J. M. PNAS. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 112, 797–802 (2015).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
15.Shipley, B. From Plant Traits to Vegetation Structure: Chance and Selection in the Assembly of Ecological Communities (Cambridge University Press, 2010).
Google Scholar 
16.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 
17.Pausas, J. G. & Verdú, M. The jungle of methods for evaluating phenotypic and phylogenetic structure of communities. Bioscience 60, 614–625 (2010).
Google Scholar 
18.Gerhold, P., Cahill, J. F., Winter, M., Bartish, I. V. & Prinzing, A. Phylogenetic patterns are not proxies of community assembly mechanisms (they are far better). Funct. Ecol. 29, 600–614 (2015).
Google Scholar 
19.Kraft, N. J. B., Cornwell, W. K., Webb, C. O. & Ackerly, D. Trait evolution, community assembly, and the phylogenetic structure of ecological communities. Am. Nat. 170, 271–283 (2007).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
20.Emerson, B. C. & Gillespie, R. G. Phylogenetic analysis of community assembly and structure over space and time. Trends Ecol. Evol. 23, 619–630 (2008).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
21.Cavender-Bares, J., Kozak, K. H., Fine, P. V. & Kembel, S. W. The merging of community Ecology and phylogenetic biology. Ecol. Lett. 12, 693–715 (2009).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
22.Chesson, P. Mechanisms of maintenance of species diversity. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 31, 343–366 (2000).
Google Scholar 
23.Godoy, O., Kraft, N. J. & Levine, J. M. Phylogenetic relatedness and the determinants of competitive outcomes. Ecol. Lett. 17, 836–844 (2014).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
24.Cadotte, M. W. Functional traits explain ecosystem function through opposing mechanisms. Ecol. Lett. 20, 989–996 (2017).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
25.de Bello, F. et al. Decoupling phylogenetic and functional diversity to reveal hidden signals in community assembly. Methods Ecol. Evol. 8, 1200–1211 (2017).ADS 

Google Scholar 
26.Cadotte, M. W., Cavender-Bares, J., Tilman, D. & Oakley, T. H. Using phylogenetic, functional and trait diversity to understand patterns of plant community productivity. PLoS One 4, e5695 (2009).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
27.Srivastava, D. S., Cadotte, M. W., MacDonald, A. A. M., Marushia, R. G. & Mirotchnick, N. Phylogenetic diversity and the functioning of ecosystems. Ecol. Lett. 15, 637–648 (2012).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
28.Cadotte, M. W., Dinnage, R. & Tilman, D. Phylogenetic diversity promotes ecosystem stability. Ecology 93, S223–S233 (2012).
Google Scholar 
29.Huang, M., Liu, X., Cadotte, M. W. & Zhou, S. Functional and phylogenetic diversity explain different components of diversity effects on biomass production. Oikos 129, 1185–1195 (2020).
Google Scholar 
30.Staab, M. et al. Tree phylogenetic diversity structures multitrophic communities. Funct. Ecol. 35, 521–534 (2021).
Google Scholar 
31.Mazel, F. et al. Prioritizing phylogenetic diversity captures functional diversity unreliably. Nat. Commun. 9, 2888 (2018).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
32.Kembel, S. W. Disentangling niche and neutral influences on community assembly: Assessing the performance of community phylogenetic structure tests. Ecol. Lett. 12, 949–960 (2009).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
33.Mayfield, M. M. & Levine, J. M. Opposing effects of competitive exclusion on the phylogenetic structure of communities. Ecol. Lett. 13, 1085–1093 (2010).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
34.Luzuriaga, A. L., Ferrandis, P., Flores, J. & Escudero, A. Effect of aridity on species assembly in gypsum drylands: A response mediated by the soil affinity of species. AoB Plants 12, plaa020 (2020).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
35.Valiente-Banuet, A. & Verdu, M. Facilitation can increase the phylogenetic diversity of plant communities. Ecol. Lett. 10, 1029–1036 (2007).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
36.Butterfield, B. J. et al. Alpine cushion plants inhibit the loss of phylogenetic diversity in severe environments. Ecol. Lett. 16, 478–486 (2013).PubMed 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
37.Slingsby, J. A. & Verboom, G. A. Phylogenetic relatedness limits co–occurrence at fine spatial scales: Evidence from the schoenoid sedges (Cyperaceae: Schoeneae) of the Cape Floristic Region, South Africa. Am. Nat. 168, 14–27 (2006).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
38.Cahill, J. F., Kembel, S. W., Lamb, E. G. & Keddy, P. A. Does phylogenetic relatedness influence the strength of competition among vascular plants?. Perspect. Plant. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 10, 41–50 (2008).
Google Scholar 
39.Cavender-Bares, J., Ackerly, D. D., Baum, D. A. & Bazzaz, F. A. Phylogenetic overdispersion in Floridian oak communities. Am. Nat. 163, 823–843 (2004).PubMed 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
40.Feng, Y., Fouqueray, T. D. & van Kleunen, M. Linking Darwin’s naturalisation hypothesis and Elton’s diversity–invasibility hypothesis in experimental grassland communities. J. Ecol. 107, 794–805 (2019).
Google Scholar 
41.Galland, T. et al. Colonization resistance and establishment success along gradients of functional and phylogenetic diversity in experimental plant communities. J. Ecol. 107, 2090–2104 (2019).
Google Scholar 
42.Peralta, A. M., Sánchez, A. M., Luzuriaga, A. L., de Bello, F. & Escudero, A. Evidence of functional species sorting by rainfall and biotic interactions: A community monolith experimental approach. J. Ecol. 107, 2772–2788 (2019).CAS 

Google Scholar 
43.Luzuriaga, A. L., Sánchez, A. M., López-Angulo, J. & Escudero, A. Habitat fragmentation determines diversity of annual plant communities at landscape and fine spatial scales. Basic. Appl. Ecol. 29, 12–19 (2018).
Google Scholar 
44.Luzuriaga, A. L., González, J. M. & Escudero, A. Annual plant community assembly in edaphically heterogeneous environments. J. Veg. Sci. 26, 866–875 (2015).
Google Scholar 
45.Pistón, N., Armas, C., Schöb, C., Macek, P. & Pugnaire, F. I. Phylogenetic distance among beneficiary species in a cushion plant species explains interaction outcome. Oikos 124, 1354–1359 (2015).
Google Scholar 
46.Matías, L., Godoy, O., Gómez-Aparicio, L. & Pérez-Ramos, I. M. An experimental extreme drought reduces the likelihood of species to coexist despite increasing intransitivity in competitive networks. J. Ecol. 106, 826–837 (2018).
Google Scholar 
47.Miranda, J. D., Armas, C., Padilla, F. M. & Pugnaire, F. I. Climatic change and rainfall patterns: Effects on semi-arid plant communities of the Iberian Southeast. J. Arid. Environ. 75, 1302–1309 (2011).ADS 

Google Scholar 
48.Chesson, P. et al. Resource pulses, species interactions, and diversity maintenance in arid and semi-arid environments. Oecologia 141, 236–253 (2004).ADS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
49.Hart, S. P. & Marshall, D. J. Environmental stress, facilitation, competition, and coexistence. Ecology 94, 2719–2731 (2013).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
50.Armas, C. & Pugnaire, F. I. Belowground zone of influence in a tussock grass species. Acta Oecol. 37, 284–289 (2011).ADS 

Google Scholar 
51.Adler, P. B., HilleRisLambers, J. & Levine, J. M. A niche for neutrality. Ecol. Lett. 10, 95–104 (2007).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
52.Scheffer, M. & van Nes, E. H. Self-organized similarity, the evolutionary emergence of groups of similar species. PNAS 103, 6230–6235 (2006).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
53.Lamb, E. G. & Cahill, J. F. Jr. When competition does not matter: Grassland diversity and community composition. Am. Nat. 17, 777–787 (2008).
Google Scholar 
54.Yan, B. G. et al. Trait assembly of woody plants in communities across sub-alpine gradients: identifying the role of limiting similarity. J. Veg. Sci. 23, 698–708 (2012).
Google Scholar 
55.Helmus, M. R., Savage, K., Diebel, M. W., Maxted, J. T. & Ives, A. R. Separating the determinants of phylogenetic community structure. Ecol. Lett. 10, 917–925 (2007).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
56.Tucker, C. M. et al. A guide to phylogenetic metrics for conservation, community ecology and macroecology. Biol. Rev. 92, 698–715 (2017).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
57.Paradis, E. & Schliep, K. ape 5.0: An environment for modern phylogenetics and evolutionary analyses in R. Bioinformatics 35, 526–528 (2018).
Google Scholar 
58.Kembel, S. W. et al. Picante: R tools for integrating phylogenies and Ecology. Bioinformatics 26, 1463–1464 (2010).PubMed 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
59.Jin, Y. & Qian, H. V. PhyloMaker: an R package that can generate very large phylogenies for vascular plants. Ecography 42, 1353–1359 (2019).
Google Scholar 
60.Silvertown, J. Plant coexistence and the niche. Trends Ecol. Evol. 19, 605–611 (2004).
Google Scholar 
61.Pacala, S. W. & Tilman, D. Limiting similarity in mechanistic and spatial models of plant competition in heterogeneous environments. Am. Nat. 143, 222–257 (1994).
Google Scholar 
62.Holt, R. D. Theoretical perspectives on resource pulses. Ecology 89, 671–681 (2008).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
63.Tilman, D. et al. Diversity and productivity in a long-term grassland experiment. Science 294, 843–845 (2001).ADS 
PubMed 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
64.Verdú, M., Rey, P. J., Alcantara, J. M., Siles, G. & Valiente-Banuet, A. Phylogenetic signatures of facilitation and competition in successional communities. J. Ecol. 97, 1171–1180 (2009).
Google Scholar 
65.Valiente-Banuet, A. & Verdu, M. Plant facilitation and phylogenetics. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 44, 347–366 (2013).
Google Scholar 
66.Lord, J., Westoby, M. & Leishman, M. Seed size and phylogeny in six temperate floras: constraints, niche conservatism, and adaptation. Am. Nat. 146, 349–364 (1995).
Google Scholar 
67.Wiens, J. J. & Graham, C. H. Niche conservatism: Integrating evolution, ecology, and conservation biology. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 36, 519–539 (2005).
Google Scholar 
68.Pfennig, D. W. & Murphy, P. J. How fluctuating competition and phenotypic plasticity mediate species divergence. Evolution 56, 1217–1228 (2002).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
69.Ashton, I. W., Miller, A. E., Bowman, W. D. & Suding, K. N. Niche complementarity due to plasticity in resource use: Plant partitioning of chemical N forms. Ecology 91, 3252–3260 (2010).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
70.D’Antonio, C. M. & Mahall, B. E. Root profiles and competition between the invasive, exotic perennial, Carpobrotus edulis, and two native shrub species in California coastal scrub. Am. J. Bot. 78, 885–894 (1991).
Google Scholar 
71.Jumpponen, A., Högberg, P., Huss-Danell, K. & Mulder, C. P. H. Interspecific and spatial differences in nitrogen uptake in monocultures and two-species mixtures in north European grasslands. Funct. Ecol. 16, 454–461 (2002).
Google Scholar 
72.Miller, A. E., Bowman, W. D. & Suding, K. N. Plant uptake of inorganic and organic nitrogen: Neighbor identity matters. Ecology 88, 1832–1840 (2007).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
73.de Kroon, H. & Mommer, L. Root foraging theory put to the test. Trends Ecol. Evol. 21, 113–116 (2006).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
74.Maynard, D. S., Serván, C. A., Capitán, J. A. & Allesina, S. Phenotypic variability promotes diversity and stability in competitive communities. Ecol. Lett. 22, 1776–1786 (2019).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
75.Violle, C., Nemergut, D. R., Pu, Z. & Jiang, L. Phylogenetic limiting similarity and competitive exclusion. Ecol. Lett. 14, 782–787 (2011).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
76.García-Camacho, R., Metz, J., Bilton, M. C. & Tielbörger, K. Phylogenetic structure of annual plant communities along an aridity gradient. Interacting effects of habitat filtering and shifting plant–plant interactions. Isr. J. Plant. Sci. 64, 122–134 (2017).
Google Scholar 
77.Vellend, M. The Theory of Ecological Communities (Princeton University Press, 2016).
Google Scholar 
78.Madrigal-González, J., Cano-Barbacil, C., Kigel, J., Ferrandis, P. & Luzuriaga, A. L. Nurse plants promote taxonomic and functional diversity in a semi-arid Mediterranean annual plant community. J. Veg. Sci. 31, 658–666 (2020).
Google Scholar 
79.McPeek, M. A. Evolutionary Community Ecology (Princeton University, 2017).
Google Scholar 
80.terHorst, C. P. et al. Evolution in a community context: Trait responses to multiple species interactions. Am. Nat. 191, 368–380 (2018).
Google Scholar 
81.Dayan, T. & Simberloff, D. Ecological and community-wide character displacement: The next generation. Ecol. Lett. 8, 875–894 (2005).
Google Scholar 
82.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 
83.Chacón-Labella, J., de la Cruz, M. & Escudero, A. Beyond the classical nurse species effect: Diversity assembly in a Mediterranean semi-arid dwarf shrubland. J. Veg. Sci. 27, 80–88 (2016).
Google Scholar 
84.IPCC 2014: Climate Change 2014: Synthesis report. Contribution of working groups I, II and III to the fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change (eds. Core Writing Team, Pachauri, R. K. & Meyer, L. A.) 151 (IPCC, 2014). More