Ecology

1.Pérez, J., Moraleda-Muñoz, A., Marcos-Torres, F. J. & Muñoz-Dorado, J. Bacterial predation: 75 years and counting!. Environ. Microbiol. 18, 766–779 (2016).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
2.Linares-Otoya, L. et al. Diversity and antimicrobial potential of predatory bacteria from the Peruvian coastline. Mar. Drugs. 15, E308. https://doi.org/10.3390/md15100308 (2017).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
3.Pasternak, Z. et al. By their genes ye shall know them: Genomic signatures of predatory bacteria. ISME J. 7, 756–769 (2013).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
4.Sockett, R. E. Predatory lifestyle of Bdellovibrio bacteriovorus. Ann. Rev. Microbiol. 63, 523–539 (2009).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
5.Korp, J., Vela Gurovic, M. S. & Nett, M. Antibiotics from predatory bacteria. Beilstein J. Org. Chem. 12, 594–607 (2016).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
6.Johnke, J., Fraune, S., Bosch, T. C. G., Hentschel, U. & Schulenburg, H. Bdellovibrio and like organisms are predictors of microbiome diversity in distinct host groups. Microb. Ecol. 79, 252–257 (2020).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
7.Vila, J., Moreno-Morales, J. & Ballesté-Delpierre, C. Current landscape in the discovery of novel antibacterial agents. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmi.2019.09.015 (2019).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
8.Hobley, L. et al. Dual predation by bacteriophage and Bdellovibrio bacteriovorus can eradicate Escherichia coli prey in situations where single predation cannot. J. Bacteriol. 202, e00629-19. https://doi.org/10.1128/JB.00629-19 (2020).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
9.El-Shibiny, A., Connerton, P. L. & Connerton, I. F. Enumeration and diversity of campylobacters and bacteriophages isolated during the rearing cycles of free-range and organic chickens. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 71, 1259–1266 (2005).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
10.Wilkinson, D. A. et al. Updating the genomic taxonomy and epidemiology of Campylobacter hyointestinalis. Sci. Rep. 8, 2393. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-20889-x (2018).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
11.Lee, M. D. GToTree: A user-friendly workflow for phylogenomics. Bioinformatics 35, 4162–4164 (2019).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
12.Eddy, S. R. Accelerated profile HMM searches. PLoS Comput. Biol. 10, e1002195 (2011).MathSciNet 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
13.Edgar, R. C. MUSCLE: A multiple sequence alignment method with reduced time and space complexity. BMC Bioinform. 5, 113 (2004).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
14.Capella-Gutiérrez, S., Silla-Martínez, J. M. & Gabaldón, T. TrimAl: A tool for automated alignment trimming in large-scale phylogenetic analyses. Bioinformatics 25, 1972–1973 (2009).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
15.Hyatt, D., LoCascio, P. F., Hauser, L. J. & Uberbacher, E. C. Gene and translation initiation site prediction in metagenomic sequences. Bioinformatics 28, 2223–2230 (2012).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
16.Shen, W. & Xiong, J. TaxonKit: A cross-platform and efficient NCBI taxonomy toolkit. bioRxiv. (Accessed 1 June 2021); https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/513523v1 (2019).
17.Price, M. N., Dehal, P. S. & Arkin, A. P. FastTree 2—Approximately maximum-likelihood trees for large alignments. PLoS One 5, e9490 (2010).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
18.Tange, O. GNU Parallel. (Accessed 1 June 2021); https://zenodo.org/record/1146014#.YOHaiJhKiUk (2018).19.Kanehisa, M. & Goto, S. KEGG: Kyoto encyclopedia of genes and genomes. Nucleic Acids Res. 28, 27–30 (2000).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
20.Czech, L. et al. Role of the extremolytes ectoine and hydroxyectoine as stress protectants and nutrients: Genetics, phylogenomics, biochemistry, and structural Analysis. Genes (Basel). 9, E177. https://doi.org/10.3390/genes9040177 (2018).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
21.Gregson, B. H., Metodieva, G., Metodiev, M. V., Golyshin, P. N. & McKew, B. A. Differential protein expression during growth on medium versus long-chain alkanes in the obligate marine hydrocarbon-degrading bacterium Thalassolituus oleivorans MIL-1. Front. Microbiol. 9, 3130 (2018).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
22.Pasternak, Z., Ben Sasson, T., Cohen, Y., Segev, E. & Jurkevitch, E. A new comparative-genomics approach for defining phenotype-specific indicators reveals specific genetic markers in predatory bacteria. PLoS One. 10, e0142933. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0142933 (2015).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
23.Yakimov, M. M. et al. Thalassolituus oleivorans gen. nov., sp. nov., a novel marine bacterium that obligately utilizes hydrocarbons. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 54, 141–148 (2004).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
24.Wang, Y., Yu, M., Liu, Y., Yang, X. & Zhang, X. H. Bacterioplanoides pacificum gen. nov., sp. nov., isolated from seawater of South Pacific Gyre. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 66, 5010–5015 (2016).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
25.Bowditch, R. D., Baumann, L. & Baumann, P. Description of Oceanospirillum kriegii sp. nov. and O. jannaschii sp. nov. and assignment of two species of Alteromonas to this genus as O. commune comb. nov. and O. vagum comb. nov. Curr. Microbiol. 10, 221–229 (1984).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
26.Dong, C., Chen, X., Xie, Y., Lai, Q. & Shao, Z. Complete genome sequence of Thalassolituus oleivorans R6-15, an obligate hydrocarbonoclastic marine bacterium from the Arctic Ocean. Stand Genom. Sci. 9, 893–901 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
27.Choi, A. & Cho, J.-C. Thalassolituus marinus sp. nov., a hydrocarbon utilizing marine bacterium. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 63, 2234–2238 (2013).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
28.Alain, K., Harder, J., Widdel, F. & Zengler, K. Anaerobic utilization of toluene by marine alpha- and gammaproteobacteria reducing nitrate. Microbiology 158, 2946–2957 (2012).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
29.Liu, J., Wu, W., Chen, C., Sun, F. & Chen, Y. Prokaryotic diversity, composition structure, and phylogenetic analysis of microbial communities in leachate sediment ecosystems. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 91, 1659–1675 (2011).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
30.Yakimov, M. M., Timmis, K. N. & Golyshin, P. N. Obligate oil-degrading marine bacteria. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 18, 257–266 (2007).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
31.McKew, B. A. et al. Efficacy of intervention strategies for bioremediation of crude oil in marine systems and effects on indigenous hydrocarbonoclastic bacteria. Environ. Microbiol. 9, 1562–1571 (2007).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
32.Satomi, M., Kimura, B., Hamada, T., Harayama, S. & Fujii, T. Phylogenetic study of the genus Oceanospirillum based on 16S rRNA and gyrB genes: emended description of the genus Oceanospirillum, description of Pseudospirillum gen. nov., Oceanobacter gen. nov. and Terasakiella gen. nov. and transfer of Oceanospirillum jannaschii and Pseudomonas stanieri to Marinobacterium as Marinobacterium jannaschii comb. nov. and Marinobacterium stanieri comb. no. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 52, 739–747 (2002).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
33.Qin, Q. L. et al. A proposed genus boundary for the prokaryotes based on genomic insights. J. Bacteriol. 196, 2210–2215 (2014).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
34.Nicholson, A. C. et al. Division of the genus Chryseobacterium: Observation of discontinuities in amino acid identity values, a possible consequence of major extinction events, guides transfer of nine species to the genus Epilithonimonas, eleven species to the genus Kaistella, and three species to the genus Halpernia gen. nov., with description of Kaistella daneshvariae sp. nov. and Epilithonimonas vandammei sp. nov. derived from clinical specimens. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 70, 4432–4450 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
35.Yarza, P. et al. Uniting the classification of cultured and uncultured bacteria and archaea using 16S rRNA gene sequences. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 12, 635–645 (2014).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
36.Barco, R. A. et al. A genus definition for Bacteria and Archaea based on a standard genome relatedness index. MBio 11, e02475-192020. https://doi.org/10.1128/mBio.02475-19 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
37.Andersson, J. O. & Andersson, S. G. Insights into the evolutionary process of genome degradation. Curr. Opin. Genet. Dev. 9, 664–671 (1999).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
38.Wall, D. & Kaiser, D. Type IV pili and cell motility. Mol. Microbiol. 32, 1–10 (1999).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
39.Jenal, U. & Malone, J. Mechanisms of cyclic-di-GMP signaling in bacteria. Ann. Rev. Genet. 40, 385–407 (2006).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
40.Dow, J. M., Fouhy, Y., Lucey, J. F. & Ryan, R. P. The HD-GYP domain, cyclic di-GMP signaling, and bacterial virulence to plants. Mol. Plant Microbe Interact. 19, 1378–1384 (2006).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
41.Hobley, L. et al. Discrete cyclic di-GMP-dependent control of bacterial predation versus axenic growth in Bdellovibrio bacteriovorus. PLoS Pathog. 8, e1002493. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.ppat.1002493 (2012).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
42.Seccareccia, I., Kovács, Á. T., Gallegos-Monterrosa, R. & Nett, M. Unraveling the predator-prey relationship of Cupriavidus necator and Bacillus subtilis. Microbiol. Res. 192, 231–238 (2016).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
43.Mu, D. S. et al. Bradymonabacteria, a novel bacterial predator group with versatile survival strategies in saline environments. Microbiome 8, 1262020 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
44.Zepeda, V. K. et al. Terasakiispira papahanaumokuakeensis gen. nov., sp. nov., a gammaproteobacterium from Pearl and Hermes Atoll, Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 65, 3609–3617 (2015).PubMed 
Article 
CAS 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
45.Terasaki, Y. Transfer of five species and two subspecies of Spirillum to other genera (Aquaspirillum and Oceanospirillum), with emended descriptions of the species and subspecies. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 29, 130–144 (1979).
Google Scholar 
46.Baker, D. A. & Park, R. W. Changes in morphology and cell wall structure that occur during growth of Vibrio sp. NCTC4716 in batch culture. J. Gen. Microbiol. 86, 12–28 (1975).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
47.Ng, L. K., Sherburne, R., Taylor, D. E. & Stiles, M. E. Morphological forms and viability of Campylobacter species studied by electron microscopy. J. Bacteriol. 164, 338–343 (1985).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
48.Reshetnyak, V. I. & Reshetnyak, T. M. Significance of dormant forms of Helicobacter pylori in ulcerogenesis. World J. Gastroenterol. 23, 4867–4878 (2017).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
49.Loc Carrillo, C. et al. Bacteriophage therapy to reduce Campylobacter jejuni colonization of broiler chickens. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 71, 6554–6563 (2005).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
50.Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. Methods for determining bactericidal activity of antimicrobial agents; approved guideline M26-A. Clin. Lab. Stand. Inst. 19, 7 (1999).
Google Scholar 
51.Legat, A., Gruber, C., Zangger, K., Wanner, G. & Stan-Lotter, H. Identification of polyhydroxyalkanoates in Halococcus and other haloarchaeal species. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 87, 1119–1127 (2010).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
52.Kumar, S., Stecher, G., Li, M., Knyaz, C. & Tamura, K. MEGA X: Molecular evolutionary genetics analysis across computing platforms. Mol. Biol. Evol. 35, 1547–1549 (2018).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
53.Tamura, K. & Nei, M. Estimation of the number of nucleotide substitutions in the control region of mitochondrial DNA in humans and chimpanzees. Mol. Biol. Evol. 10, 512–526 (1993).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
54.Felsenstein, J. Confidence limits on phylogenies: An approach using the bootstrap. Evolution 39, 783–791 (1985).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
55.Rodriguez-R, L. M. & Konstantinidis, K. T. Bypassing cultivation to identify bacterial species. Microbe 9, 111–118 (2014).
Google Scholar 
56.Huerta-Cepas, J. et al. Fast genome-wide functional annotation through orthology assignment by eggNOG-mapper. Mol. Biol. Evol. 34, 2115–2122 (2017).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar  More

1.Pyron M. Characterizing communities. Nat Educ Knowl. 2010;3:39.
Google Scholar 
2.Hatton IA, Heneghan RF, Bar-On YM, Galbraith ED The global ocean size-spectrum from bacteria to whales. bioRxiv 2021; 2021.04.03.438320.3.Karsenti E, Acinas SG, Bork P, Bowler C, De Vargas C, Raes J, et al. A holistic approach to marine Eco-systems biology. PLoS Biol. 2011;9:e1001177.PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
4.Mora C, Tittensor DP, Adl S, Simpson AGB, Worm B. How many species are there on Earth and in the ocean? PLoS Biol. 2011;9:e1001127.PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
5.de Vargas C, Audic S, Henry N, Decelle J, Mahé F, Logares R, et al. Eukaryotic plankton diversity in the sunlit ocean. Science. 2015;348:1–12.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
6.Lejzerowicz F, Gooday AJ, Barrenechea Angeles I, Cordier, T, Morard, R, Apothéloz-Perret-Gentil L, et al. Eukaryotic biodiversity and spatial patterns in the Clarion-Clipperton zone and other abyssal regions: insights from sediment DNA and RNA metabarcoding. Front Mar Sci. 2021;8:1–23.Article 

Google Scholar 
7.Mahé F, de Vargas C, Bass D, Czech L, Stamatakis A, Lara E, et al. Parasites dominate hyperdiverse soil protist communities in Neotropical rainforests. Nat Ecol Evol. 2017;1:1–8.Article 

Google Scholar 
8.Pawlowski J, Kelly-Quinn M, Altermatt F, Apothéloz-Perret-Gentil L, Beja P, Boggero A, et al. The future of biotic indices in the ecogenomic era: Integrating (e)DNA metabarcoding in biological assessment of aquatic ecosystems. Sci Total Environ. 2018;637–638:1295–310.PubMed 
Article 
CAS 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
9.Ruppert KM, Kline RJ, Rahman MS. Past, present, and future perspectives of environmental DNA (eDNA) metabarcoding: A systematic review in methods, monitoring, and applications of global eDNA. Glob Ecol Conserv. 2019;17:e00547.Article 

Google Scholar 
10.Zinger L, Bonin A, Alsos IG, Bálint M, Bik H, Boyer F, et al. DNA metabarcoding—Need for robust experimental designs to draw sound ecological conclusions. Mol Ecol. 2019;28:1857–62.PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
11.Lamb PD, Hunter E, Pinnegar JK, Creer S, Davies RG, Taylor MI. How quantitative is metabarcoding: A meta-analytical approach. Mol Ecol. 2019;28:420–30.PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
12.del Campo J, Kolisko M, Boscaro V, Santoferrara LF, Nenarokov S, Massana R, et al. EukRef: Phylogenetic curation of ribosomal RNA to enhance understanding of eukaryotic diversity and distribution. PLoS Biol. 2018;16:e2005849.PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
13.Guillou L, Bachar D, Audic S, Bass D, Berney C, Bittner L, et al. The Protist Ribosomal Reference database (PR2): a catalog of unicellular eukaryote small sub-unit rRNA sequences with curated taxonomy. Nucleic Acids Res. 2013;41:D597–D604.PubMed 
Article 
CAS 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
14.Godhe A, Asplund ME, Härnström K, Saravanan V, Tyagi A, Karunasagar I. Quantification of diatom and dinoflagellate biomasses in coastal marine seawater samples by real-time PCR. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2008;74:7174–82.PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
15.Gong J, Dong J, Liu X, Massana R. Extremely high copy numbers and polymorphisms of the rDNA operon estimated from single cell analysis of oligotrich and peritrich ciliates. Protist. 2013;164:369–79.PubMed 
Article 
CAS 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
16.Rodríguez-Martínez R, Labrenz M, del Campo J, Forn I, Jürgens K, Massana R. Distribution of the uncultured protist MAST-4 in the Indian Ocean, Drake Passage and Mediterranean Sea assessed by real-time quantitative PCR. Environ Microbiol. 2009;11:397–408.PubMed 
Article 
CAS 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
17.Zhu F, Massana R, Not F, Marie D, Vaulot D. Mapping of picoeucaryotes in marine ecosystems with quantitative PCR of the 18S rRNA gene. FEMS Microbiol Ecol. 2005;52:79–92.PubMed 
Article 
CAS 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
18.Wang Y, Jiang Y, Liu Y, Li Y, Katz LA, Gao F, et al. Comparative studies on the polymorphism and copy number variation of mtSSU rDNA in ciliates (Protista, ciliophora): Implications for phylogenetic, environmental, and ecological research. Microorganisms. 2020;8:316.PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
19.Dunthorn M, Stoeck T, Clamp J, Warren A, Mahé F. Ciliates and the rare biosphere: A review. J Eukaryot Microbiol. 2014;61:404–9.PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
20.Gong W, Marchetti A. Estimation of 18S gene copy number in marine eukaryotic plankton using a next-generation sequencing approach. Front Mar Sci. 2019;6:1–5.Article 

Google Scholar 
21.Kucera M. Chapter six planktonic foraminifera as tracers of past oceanic environments. Dev Mar Geol. 2007;1:213–62.
Google Scholar 
22.Morard R, Escarguel G, Weiner AK, André A, Douady CJ, Wade CM, et al. Nomenclature for the nameless: a proposal for an integrative molecular taxonomy of cryptic diversity exemplified by planktonic foraminifera. Syst Biol. 2016;65:925–40.PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
23.Darling KF, Wade CM. The genetic diversity of planktic foraminifera and the global distribution of ribosomal RNA genotypes. Mar Micropaleontol. 2008;67:216–38.Article 

Google Scholar 
24.André A, Quillévéré F, Morard R, Ujiié Y, Escarguel G, de Vargas C, et al. SSU rDNA divergence in planktonic foraminifera: molecular taxonomy and biogeographic implications. PLoS ONE. 2014;9:e104641.PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
25.Morard R, Garet-Delmas MJ, Mahé F, Romac S, Poulain J, Kucera M, et al. Surface ocean metabarcoding confirms limited diversity in planktonic foraminifera but reveals unknown hyper-abundant lineages. Sci Rep. 2018;8:1–10. 2539Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
26.Morard R, Vollmar NM, Greco M, Kucera M. Unassigned diversity of planktonic foraminifera from environmental sequencing revealed as known but neglected species. PLoS One. 2019;14:e0213936.PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
27.Lecroq B, Lejzerowicz F, Bachar D, Christen R, Esling P, Baerlocher L, et al. Ultra-deep sequencing of foraminiferal microbarcodes unveils hidden richness of early monothalamous lineages in deep-sea sediments. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2011;108:13177–82.PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
28.Lejzerowicz F, Esling P, Pawlowski J. Patchiness of deep-sea benthic Foraminifera across the Southern Ocean: Insights from high-throughput DNA sequencing. Deep Sea Res Part II Top Stud Oceanogr. 2014;108:17–26.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
29.Shi J, Lei Y, Li Q, Lyu M, Li T. Molecular diversity and spatial distribution of benthic foraminifera of the seamounts and adjacent abyssal plains in the tropical Western Pacific Ocean. Mar Micropaleontol. 2020;156:101850.Article 

Google Scholar 
30.Li Q, Lei Y, Morard R, Li T, Wang B. Diversity hotspot and unique community structure of foraminifera in the world’s deepest marine blue hole—Sansha Yongle Blue Hole. Sci Rep. 2020;10:10257.PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
31.Cordier T, Barrenechea I, Lejzerowicz F, Reo E, Pawlowski J. Benthic foraminiferal DNA metabarcodes significantly vary along a gradient from abyssal to hadal depths and between each side of the Kuril-Kamchatka trench. Prog Oceanogr. 2019;178:102175.Article 

Google Scholar 
32.Weber AA-T, Pawlowski J. Can Abundance of Protists Be Inferred from Sequence Data: A Case Study of Foraminifera. PLoS One. 2013;8:e56739.PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
33.Jonkers L, Meilland J, Rillo MC, de Garidel-Thoron T, Kitchener JA, Kucera M. Linking zooplankton time series to the fossil record. ICES J Mar Sci. 2021:1–8.34.Weiner AKM, Morard R, Weinkauf MFG, Darling KF, André A, Quillévéré F, et al. Methodology for single-cell genetic analysis of planktonic foraminifera for studies of protist diversity and evolution. Front Mar Sci. 2016;3:1–15.Article 

Google Scholar 
35.Arya M, Shergill IS, Williamson M, Gommersall L, Arya N, Patel HR. Basic principles of real-time quantitative PCR. Expert Rev Mol Diagn. 2005;5:209–19.PubMed 
Article 
CAS 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
36.Barrenechea Angeles I, Lejzerowicz F, Cordier T, Scheplitz J, Kucera M, Ariztegui D, et al. Planktonic foraminifera eDNA signature deposited on the seafloor remains preserved after burial in marine sediments. Sci Rep. 2020;10:1–12.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
37.Morard R, Darling KF, Mahé F, Audic S, Ujiié Y, Weiner AK, et al. PFR2: a curated database of planktonic foraminifera 18S ribosomal DNA as a resource for studies of plankton ecology, biogeography and evolution. Mol Ecol Resour. 2015;15:1472–85.PubMed 
Article 
CAS 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
38.R Development Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. http://www.r-project.org/.39.Wickham H ggplot2: Elegant graphics for data analysis. 2009. Springer-Verlag, New York.40.Wickham H, Averick M, Bryan J, Chang W, McGowan L, François R, et al. Welcome to the Tidyverse. J Open Source Softw. 2019;4:1686.Article 

Google Scholar 
41.Debode F, Marien A, Janssen É, Bragard C, Berben G. The influence of amplicon length on real-time PCR results. Biotechnol Agron Soc Environ. 2017;21:3–11.CAS 

Google Scholar 
42.Bé AWH, Lott L. Shell growth and structure of planktonic foraminifera. Science. 1964;145:2–3.Article 

Google Scholar 
43.Caromel AGM, Schmidt DN, Fletcher I, Rayfield EJ Morphological change during the ontogeny of the planktic foraminifera. J Micropalaeontology. 2015; 2014–017.44.Darling KF, Kucera M, Kroon D, Wade CM. A resolution for the coiling direction paradox in Neogloboquadrina pachyderma. Paleoceanography. 2006;21:PA2011–n/a.Article 

Google Scholar 
45.Parfrey LW, Lahr DJG, Katz LA. The dynamic nature of eukaryotic genomes. Mol Biol Evol. 2008;25:787–94.PubMed 
Article 
CAS 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
46.Parfrey LW, Katz LA. Dynamic genomes of eukaryotes and the maintenance of genomic integrity. Microbe. 2010;5:156–63.
Google Scholar 
47.Parfrey LW, Katz LA. Genome dynamics are influenced by food source in Allogromia laticollaris strain CSH (Foraminifera). Genome Biol Evol. 2010;2:678–85.PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
48.Finkel ZV, Beardall J, Flynn KJ, Quigg A, Rees TAV, Raven JA. Phytoplankton in a changing world: Cell size and elemental stoichiometry. J Plankton Res. 2010;32:119–37.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
49.Goldstein ST. Gametogenesis and the antiquity of reproductive pattern in the Foraminiferida. J Foraminifer Res. 1997;27:319–28.Article 

Google Scholar 
50.Davis CV, Livsey CM, Palmer HM, Hull PM, Thomas E, Hill TM, et al. Extensive morphological variability in asexually produced planktic foraminifera. Sci Adv. 2020;6:1–8.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
51.Takagi H, Kurasawa A, Kimoto K. Observation of asexual reproduction with symbiont transmission in planktonic foraminifera. J Plankton Res. 2020;42:403–10.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
52.Lessa D, Morard R, Jonkers L, Venancio IM, Reuter R, Baumeister A, et al. Distribution of planktonic foraminifera in the subtropical South Atlantic: Depth hierarchy of controlling factors. Biogeosciences. 2020;17:4313–42.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
53.Kucera M, Michael S, Raphaël M, Lukas J, Christiane S, Philipp M, et al. Scales of Population Dynamics, Ecology and Diversity of Planktonic Foraminifera and their Relationship to Particle Flux in the Eastern Tropical Atlantic: Cruise No. M140, 11.8.2017-5.9.2017, Mindelo (Cabo Verde)-Las Palmas (Spain) – FORAMFLUX. 2019. Bonn.54.Schiebel R. Planktic foraminiferal sedimentation and the marine calcite budget. Global Biogeochem Cycles. 2002;16:3-1–3–21.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
55.Meilland J, Schiebel R, Lo Monaco C, Sanchez S, Howa H. Abundances and test weights of living planktic foraminifers across the Southwest Indian Ocean: implications for carbon fluxes. Deep Sea Res Part I Oceanogr Res Pap. 2018;131:27–40.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
56.Pierella Karlusich JJ, Pelletier E, Lombard F, Carsique M, Dvorak E, Colin S, et al. Global distribution patterns of marine nitrogen-fixers by imaging and molecular methods. Nat Commun. 2021;12:4160.PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar  More

Adamack AT, Gruber B (2014) PopGenReport: simplifying basic population genetic analyses in R. Methods Ecol Evol 5:384–387Article 

Google Scholar 
Allendorf FW (2017) Genetics and the conservation of natural populations: allozymes to genomes. Mol Ecol 26:420–430CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Van Asch B, Pinheiro R, Pereira R, Alves C, Pereira V, Pereira F et al. (2010) A framework for the development of STR genotyping in domestic animal species: characterization and population study of 12 canine X‐chromosome loci. Electrophoresis 31:303–308PubMed 
Article 
CAS 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Bates D, Maechler M, Bolker B, Walker S, Bojesen RH, Singmann H et al. (2014) Package Lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using Eigen andS4. R package version 1.1-10Blaszczynski JS (1997) Landform characterization with Geographic Information Systems. Photogramm Eng Remote Sens 63:183–191
Google Scholar 
Bolnick DI, Fitzpatrick BM (2007) Sympatric Speciation: Models and Empirical Evidence. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 38:459–487Article 

Google Scholar 
Cadena CD, Kozak KH, Gomez JP, Parra JL, McCain CM, Bowie RC et al. (2012) Latitude, elevational climatic zonation and speciation in New World vertebrates. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 279:194–201
Google Scholar 
Caro LM, Caycedo‐Rosales PC, Bowie RCK, Slabbekoorn H, Cadena CD (2013) Ecological speciation along an elevational gradient in a tropical passerine bird? J Evol Biol 26:357–374CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Clarke RT, Rothery P, Raybould AF (2002) Confidence limits for regression relationships between distance matrices: estimating gene flow with distance. J Agric Biol Environ Stat 7:361–372Article 

Google Scholar 
Crandall KA, Bininda-Emonds OR, Mace GM, Wayne RK (2000) Considering evolutionary processes in conservation biology. Trends Ecol Evol 15:290–295CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Cushman SA, McKelvey KS, Hayden J, Schwartz MK (2006) Gene flow in complex landscapes: testing multiple hypotheses with causal modeling. Am Nat 168:486–499PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Do C, Waples RS, Peel D, Macbeth GM, Tillett BJ, Ovenden JR (2014) NeEstimator v2: re‐implementation of software for the estimation of contemporary effective population size (Ne) from genetic data. Mol Ecol Resour 14:209–214CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Dormann CF, Elith J, Bacher S, Buchmann C, Carl G, Carré G et al. (2012) Collinearity: a review of methods to deal with it and a simulation study evaluating their performance. Ecography 36:27–46Article 

Google Scholar 
Dreher CE, Cummings ME, Pröhl H (2015) An analysis of predator selection to affect aposematic coloration in a poison frog species. PloS One 10:e0130571PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Dugas MB, Halbrook SR, Killius AM, Sol JF, Richards‐Zawacki CL (2015) Colour and escape behaviour in polymorphic populations of an aposematic poison frog. Ethology 121:813–822Article 

Google Scholar 
Earl DA, vonHoldt BM (2012) STRUCTURE HARVESTER: a website and program for visualizing STRUCTURE output and implementing the Evanno method. Conserv Genet Resour 4:359–361Article 

Google Scholar 
Ebersbach J, Posso-Terranova A, Bogdanowicz S, Gómez‐Díaz M, García‐González MX, Bolívar‐García W et al. (2020) Complex patterns of differentiation and gene flow underly the divergence of aposematic phenotypes in Oophaga poison frogs. Mol Ecol 29:1944–1956CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Evanno G, Regnaut S, Goudet J (2005) Detecting the number of clusters of individuals using the software STRUCTURE: a simulation study. Mol Ecol 14:2611–2620CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Farr TG, Kobrick M (2000) Shuttle radar topography mission produces a wealth of data. Eos 81:583–585Article 

Google Scholar 
Funk WC, Murphy MA (2010) Testing evolutionary hypotheses for phenotypic divergence using landscape genetics. Mol Ecol 19:427–430PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Funk WC, McKay JK, Hohenlohe PA, Allendorf FW (2012) Harnessing genomics for delineating conservation units. Trends Ecol Evol 27:489–496PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Funk WC, Murphy MA, Hoke KL, Muths E, Amburgey SM, Lemmon EM et al. (2016) Elevational speciation in action? Restricted gene flow associated with adaptive divergence across an altitudinal gradient. J Evol Biol 29:241–252CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Funk WC, Blouin MS, Corn PS, Maxell BA, Pilliod DS, Amish S, Allendorf FW (2005) Population structure of Columbia spotted frogs (Rana luteiventris) is strongly affected by the landscape. Mol Ecol 14:483–496CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Galeano SP, Harms KE (2016) Coloration in the polymorphic frog Oophaga pumilio associates with level of aggressiveness in intraspecific and interspecific behavioral interactions. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 70:83–97Article 

Google Scholar 
García-Rodríguez A, Guarnizo CE, Crawford AJ, Garda AA, Costa GC (2021) Idiosyncratic responses to drivers of genetic differentiation in the complex landscapes of Isthmian Central America. Heredity 126:251–265PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Gessler PE, Moore ID, McKenzie NJ, Ryan PJ (1995) Soil-landscape modeling and spatial prediction of soil attributes. Int J Geogr Inf Sci 9:421–432Article 

Google Scholar 
Graham CH, Ron SR, Santos JC, Schneider CJ, Moritz C (2004) Integrating phylogenetics and environmental niche models to explore speciation mechanisms in dendrobatid frogs. Evolution 58:1781–1793PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Guarnizo CE, Cannatella DC (2013) Genetic divergence within frog species is greater in topographically more complex regions. J Zool Syst Evol Res 51:333–340Article 

Google Scholar 
Guarnizo CE, Amézquita A, Bermingham E (2009) The relative roles of vicariance versus elevational gradients in the genetic differentiation of the high Andean tree frog, Dendropsophus labialis. Mol Phylogenet Evol 50:84–92CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Hansen MC, Townshend JRG, DeFries RS, Carroll M (2005) Estimation of tree cover using MODIS data at global, continental and regional/local scales. Int J Remote Sens 26:4359–4380Article 

Google Scholar 
Harvey MG, Aleixo A, Ribas CC, Brumfield RT (2017) Habitat association predicts genetic diversity and population divergence in Amazonian birds. Am Nat 190:631–648PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Hijmans RJ, Cameron SE, Parra JL, Jones PG, Jarvis A (2005) Very high resolution interpolated climate surface for global land areas. Int J Climatol 25:1965–1978Article 

Google Scholar 
Hoffman AA, Sgrò CM (2011) Climate change and evolutionary adaptation. Nature 470:479–485Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Holleley CE, Geerts PG (2009) Multiplex Manager 1.0: a cross-platform computer program that plans and optimizes multiplex PCR. Biotechniques 46:511–517CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Huete A, Didan K, Miura T, Rodriguez EP, Gao X, Ferreira LG (2002) Overview of the radiometric and biophysical performance of the MODIS vegetation indices. Remote Sens Environ 83:195–213Article 

Google Scholar 
Hutter CR, Lambert SM, Wiens JJ (2017) Rapid diversification and time explain amphibian richness at different scales in the Tropical Andes, Earth’s most biodiverse hotspot. Am Nat 190:828–843PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Jombart T (2008) Adegenet: a R package for the multivariate analysis of genetic markers. Bioinformatics 24:1403–1405CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Kalinowski ST (2005) hp‐rare 1.0: a computer program for performing rarefaction on measures of allelic richness. Mol Ecol Notes 5:187–189CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Kawecki TJ, Ebert D (2004) Conceptual issues in local adaptation. Ecol Lett 7:1225–1241Article 

Google Scholar 
Kearse M, Moir R, Wilson A, Stones-Havas S, Cheung M, Sturrock S et al. (2012) Geneious Basic: an integrated and extendable desktop software platform for the organization and analysis of sequence data. Bioinformatics 28:1647–1649PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Keller I, Seehausen O (2012) Thermal adaptation and ecological speciation. Mol Ecol 21:782–799CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Keller I, Alexander JM, Holderegger R, Edwards PJ (2013) Widespread phenotypic and genetic divergence along altitudinal gradients in animals. J Evol Biol 26:2527–2543CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Leinonen T, Cano JM, Mäkinen H, Merilä J (2006) Contrasting patterns of body shape and neutral genetic divergence in marine and lake populations of threespine sticklebacks. J Evol Biol 19:1803–1812CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Lowe WH, McPeek MA, Likens GE, Cosentino BJ (2012) Decoupling of genetic and phenotypic divergence in a headwater landscape. Mol Ecol 21:2399–2409PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Lynch JD, Duellman WE (1997) Frogs of the genus Eleutherodactylus (Leptodactylidae) in western Ecuador: systematics, ecology and biogeography. University of Kansas, Natural History Museum. Special Publication No. 23. University of Kansas Printing Service, Lawrence, KansasMaan ME, Cummings ME (2009) Sexual dimorphism and directional sexual selection on aposematic signals in a poison frog. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 106:19072–19077CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Márquez R, Linderoth TP, Mejía-Vargas D, Nielsen R, Amézquita A, Kronforst MR (2020) Divergence, gene flow and the origin of leapfrog geographic distributions: The history of color pattern variation in Phyllobates poison-dart frogs. Mol Ecol 29:3702–3719PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Mayr E (1963) Animal Species and Evolution. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MABook 

Google Scholar 
McCune B, Keon D (2002) Equations for potential annual direct incident radiation and heat load index. J Veg Sci 13:603–606Article 

Google Scholar 
McKay JK, Latta RG (2002) Adaptive population divergence: markers, QTL and traits. Trends Ecol Evol 17:285–291Article 

Google Scholar 
McRae BH (2006) Isolation by resistance. Evolution 60:1551–1561PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
McRae BH, Dickson BG, Keitt TH, Shah VB (2008) Using circuit theory to model connectivity in ecology and conservation. Ecology 10:2712–2724Article 

Google Scholar 
Moore ID, Gessler PE, Nielsen GA, Petersen GA (1993) Terrain attributes: estimation methods and scale effects. In: Jakeman AJ, Beck MB, McAleer M (eds) Modeling Change in Environmental Systems. Wiley, London, p 189–214
Google Scholar 
Morrison C, Hero JM (2003) Geographic variation in life‐history characteristics of amphibians: a review. J Anim Ecol 72:270–279Article 

Google Scholar 
Muir AP, Biek R, Thomas R, Mable BK (2014) Local adaptation with high gene flow: temperature parameters drive adaptation to altitude in the common frog (Rana temporaria). Mol Ecol 23:561–574CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Myers N, Mittermeier RA, Mittermeier CG, Fonseca GAB, Kent J (2000) Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 403:853–858CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Naimi B, Hamm NA, Groen TA, Skidmore AK, Toxopeus AG (2014) Where is positional uncertainty a problem for species distribution modelling. Ecography 37:191–203Article 

Google Scholar 
Nali RC, Becker CG, Zamudio KR, Prado CP (2020) Topography, more than land cover, explains genetic diversity in a Neotropical savanna tree frog. Divers Distrib 26:1798–1812Article 

Google Scholar 
Noonan BP, Comeault AA (2009) The role of predator selection on polymorphic aposematic poison frogs. Biol Lett 5:51–54PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Nosil P (2008) Speciation with gene flow could be common. Mol Ecol 17:2103–2106PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Van Oosterhout C, Hutchinson WF, Wills DPM, Shipley P (2004) MICRO‐CHECKER: software for identifying and correcting genotyping errors in microsatellite data. Mol Ecol Notes 4:535–538Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Orr MR, Smith TB (1998) Ecology and speciation. Trends Ecol Evol 13:502–506CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Páez-Vacas MI, Oleas NH (2019) Isolation and characterization of 12 microsatellite loci in Epipedobates anthonyi (Amphibia: Anura: Dendrobatidae) for population genetic analysis. Mol Biol Rep. 46:3519–3522PubMed 
Article 
CAS 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Pfennig DW, Wund MA, Snell-Rood EC, Cruickshank T, Schlichting CD, Moczek AP (2010) Phenotypic plasticity’s impacts on diversification and speciation. Trends Ecol Evol 25:459–467PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Pilliod DS, Peterson CR, Ritson PI (2002) Seasonal migration of Columbia spotted frogs (Rana luteiventris) among complementary resources in a high mountain basin. CAN J ZOOL 80:1849–1862Article 

Google Scholar 
Pinho C, Hey J (2010) Divergence with gene flow: models and data. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Systs 41:215–230Article 

Google Scholar 
Pintanel P, Tejedo M, Ron SR, Llorente GA, Merino‐Viteri A (2019) Elevational and microclimatic drivers of thermal tolerance in Andean Pristimantis frogs. J Biogeogr 46:1664–1675Article 

Google Scholar 
Polato NR, Gill BA, Shah AA, Gray MM, Casner KL, Barthelet A et al. (2018) Narrow thermal tolerance and low dispersal drive higher speciation in tropical mountains. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 115:12471–12476CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Posso-Terranova A, Andrés JA (2016) Complex niche divergence underlies lineage diversification in Oophaga poison frogs. J Biogeogr 43:2002–2015Article 

Google Scholar 
Prates I, Paz A, Brown JL, Carnaval AC (2019) Links between prey assemblages and poison frog toxins: a landscape ecology approach to assess how biotic interactions affect species phenotypes. Ecol Evol 9:14317–14329PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Pritchard JK, Stephens M, Donnelly P (2000) Inference of population structure using multilocus genotype data. Genetics 155:945–959CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Räsänen K, Hendry AP (2008) Disentangling interactions between adaptive divergence and gene flow when ecology drives diversification. Ecol Lett 11:624–636PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Raymond M, Rousset F (1995) GENEPOP (version 1.2): population genetics software for exact tests and ecumenicism. J Hered 83:248–249Article 

Google Scholar 
Rice WR (1989) Analyzing tables of statistical tests. Evolution 43:223–225PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Richards‐Zawacki CL (2009) Effects of slope and riparian habitat connectivity on gene flow in an endangered Panamanian frog, Atelopus varius. Divers Distrib 15:796–806Article 

Google Scholar 
Richter-Boix A, Quintela M, Kierczak M, Franch M, Laurila A (2013) Fine-grained adaptive divergence in an amphibian: genetic basis of phenotypic divergence and the role of nonrandom gene flow in restricting effective migration among wetlands. Mol Ecol 22:1322–1340CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Robertson JM, Murphy MA, Pearl CA, Adams MJ, Páez‐Vacas MI, Haig SM, Funk WC (2018) Regional variation in drivers of connectivity for two frog species (Rana pretiosa and R. luteiventris) from the US Pacific Northwest. Mol Ecol 27:3242–3256Article 

Google Scholar 
Rojas D, Lima AP, Momigliano P, Simões PI, Dudaniec RY, De Avila-Pires TCS et al. (2020) The evolution of polymorphism in the warning coloration of the Amazonian poison frog Adelphobates galactonotus. Heredity 124:439–456CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Roland AB, Santos JC, Carriker BC, Caty SN, Tapia EE, Coloma LA et al. (2017) Radiation of the polymorphic Little Devil poison frog (Oophaga sylvatica) in Ecuador. Ecol Evol 7:9750–9762PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Row JR, Knick ST, Oyler‐McCance SJ, Lougheed SC, Fedy BC (2017) Developing approaches for linear mixed modeling in landscape genetics through landscape directed dispersal simulations. Ecol Evol 7:3751–3761PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Rundle HD, Nosil P (2005) Ecological speciation. Ecol Lett 8:336–352Article 

Google Scholar 
Santos JC, Cannatella DC (2011) Phenotypic integration emerges from aposematism and scale in poison frogs. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 108:6175–6180CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Savolainen O, Lascoux M, Merilä J (2013) Ecological genomics of local adaptation. Nat Rev Genet 14:807–820CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Schluter D (2009) Evidence for ecological speciation and its alternative. Science 323:737–741CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Schuelke M (2000) An economic method for the fluorescent labeling of PCR fragments. Nat Biotechnol 18:233–234CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Servedio MR, Van Doorn GS, Kopp M, Frame AM, Nosil P (2011) Magic traits in speciation: ‘magic’ but not rare? Trends Ecol Evol 26:389–397PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Sexton JP, Hangartner SB, Hoffmann AA (2014) Genetic isolation by environment or distance: which pattern of gene flow is most common? Evolution 68:1–15CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Shafer AB, Wolf JBW, Alves PC, Bergström L, Bruford MW, Brännström I et al. (2015) Genomics and the challenging translation into conservation practice. Trends Ecol Evol 30:78–87PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Slatkin M (1987) Gene flow and the geographic structure of natural populations. Science 236:787–792CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Stevens M, Hopkins E, Hinde W, Adcock A, Connolly Y, Troscianko T et al. (2007) Field experiments on the effectiveness of ‘eyespots’ as predator deterrents. Anim Behav 74:1215–1227Article 

Google Scholar 
Storfer A, Patton A, Fraik AK (2018) Navigating the interface between landscape genetics and landscape genomics. Front Genet 9:68PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Van Strien MJ, Keller D, Holderegger R (2012) A new analytical approach to landscape genetic modelling: least-cost transect analysis and linear mixed models. Mol Ecol 21:4010–4023Article 

Google Scholar 
Summers K, Symula R, Clough M, Cronin T (1999) Visual mate choice in poison frogs. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 266:2141–2145CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Tarvin RD, Powell EA, Santos JC, Ron SR, Cannatella DC (2017) The birth of aposematism: High phenotypic divergence and low genetic diversity in a young clade of poison frogs. Mol Phylogenet Evol 109:283–295PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Thomé MTC, Carstens BC, Rodrigues MT, Galetti Jr PM, Alexandrino J, Haddad CF (2021) A role of asynchrony of seasons in explaining genetic differentiation in a Neotropical toad. Heredity 2021:1–10
Google Scholar 
Twomey E, Vestergaard JS, Venegas PJ, Summers K (2016) Mimetic Divergence and the Speciation Continuum in the Mimic Poison Frog Ranitomeya imitator. Am Nat 187:205–224PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Wang IJ, Summers K (2010) Genetic structure is correlated with phenotypic divergence rather than geographic isolation in the highly polymorphic strawberry poison‐dart frog. Mol Ecol 19:447–458PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Warren DL, Glor RE, Turelli M (2010) ENMTools: a toolbox for comparative studies of environmental niche models. Ecography 33:607–611Article 

Google Scholar 
Willink B, García‐Rodríguez A, Bolaños F, Pröhl H (2014) The interplay between multiple predators and prey colour divergence. Biol J Linn Soc Lond 113:580–589Article 

Google Scholar 
Womack MC, Bell RC (2020) Two‐hundred million years of anuran body‐size evolution in relation to geography, ecology and life history. J Evol Biol 33:1–16Article 

Google Scholar 
Wright S (1943) Isolation by distance. Genetics 28:114–138CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Zamudio KR, Bell RC, Mason NA (2016) Phenotypes in phylogeography: Species’ traits, environmental variation, and vertebrate diversification. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 113:8041–8048CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar  More

1.Stephenson, C., Handmer, J. & Robyn, B. Estimating the economic, social and environmental impacts of wildfires in Australia. Environ. Hazards 12, 93–111. https://doi.org/10.1080/17477891.2012.703490 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
2.Doerr, S. H. & Santín, C. Global trends in wildfire and its impacts: Perceptions versus realities in a changing world. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. Biol. Sci 371(1696), 20150345. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2015.0345 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
3.Dusaeva, GKh., Kalmykova, O. G. & Dusaeva, N. V. Fire influence on dynamics of above-ground phytomass in steppe plant communities in the Burtinskaya Steppe (Orenburg State Nature Reserve, Russia). Nat. Conserv. Res. 4(Suppl. 1), 78–92. https://doi.org/10.24189/ncr.2019.050 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
4.Koltz, A. M. et al. Global change and the importance of fire for the ecology and evolution of insects. Curr. Opin. Insect Sci. 29, 110–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cois.2018.07.015 (2018).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
5.Malevsky-Malevich, S. P., Molkentin, E. K., Nadyozhina, E. D. & Shklyarevich, O. B. An assessment of potential change in wildfire activity in the Russian boreal forest zone induced by climate warming during the twenty-first century. Clim. Change 86, 463–474 (2008).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
6.Anisimov, O. A. & Sherstiukov, A. B. Evaluating the effect of environmental factors on permafrost in Russia. Earth’s Cryosphere 20(2), 90–99 (2016) (in Russian).
Google Scholar 
7.Aleinikov, A. A. The fire history in pine forests of the plain area in the Pechora-Ilych Nature Biosphere Reserve (Russia) before 1942: Possible anthropogenic causes and long-term effects. Nat. Conserv. Res. 4(Suppl. 1), 21–34. https://doi.org/10.24189/ncr.2019.033 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
8.Rozhkov, Yu. F. & Kondakova, MYu. Assessment of the post-fire forest restoration dynamics in the Olekminsky State Nature Reserve (Russia) according to data of Landsat satellite images. Nat. Conserv. Res. 4(Suppl. 1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.2418/ncr.2019.014 (2019) (in Russian).Article 

Google Scholar 
9.Shvetsov, E. G. & Ponomarev, E. I. Postfire effects in Siberian larch stands on multispectral satellite data. Contemp. Probl. Ecol. 13(1), 104–112 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
10.Shvetsov, E. G., Kukavskaya, E. A. & Buryak, L. V. Satellite monitoring of the state of forest vegetation after fire impacts in the Zabaikal Region. Contemp. Probl. Ecol. 9(6), 702–710 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
11Kazeev, KSh. et al. Post-fire changes in the biological properties of the brown soils in the Utrish State Nature Reserve (Russia). Nat. Conserv. Res. 4(Suppl. 1), 93–104. https://doi.org/10.24189/ncr.2019.055 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
12Kopoteva, T. A. & Kuptsova, V. A. Effects of pyrogenic factor on wetlands of Petrovskaya Pad’ (Jewish Autonomous Region, Russia). Nat. Conserv. Res. 4(Suppl. 1), 35–44. https://doi.org/10.24189/ncr.2019.034 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
13.Lebedinskii, A. A., Noskova, O. S. & Dmitriev, A. I. Post-fire recovery of terrestrial vertebrates in the Kerzhensky State Nature Biosphere Reserve (Central Volga Region, Russia). Nat. Conserv. Res. 4(Suppl. 1), 45–56. https://doi.org/10.24189/ncr.2019.049 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
14.Shinkarenko, S. S., Ivanov, N. M. & Berdengalieva, A. N. Spatio-temporal dynamics of burnt areas in federal Protected Areas in the south-east of European Russia. Nat. Conserv. Res. 6(3), 23–44. https://doi.org/10.24189/ncr.2021.035 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
15.Hoffmann, B. D. Responses of ant communities to experimental fire regimes on rangelands in the Victoria River District of the Northern Territory. Aust. Ecol. 28, 182–195 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
16.Murphy, S. M., Richards, L. A. & Wimp, G. M. Editorial: Arthropod interactions and responses to disturbance in a changing world. Front. Ecol. Evol. 8, 93. https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2020.00093 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
17.Turner, M. G. Disturbance and landscape dynamics in a changing world. Ecology 91, 2833–2849. https://doi.org/10.1890/10-0097.1 (2010).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
18.Gandhi, K. J. K., Spence, J. R., Langor, D. W. & Morgantini, L. E. Fire residuals as habitat reserves for epigaeic beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae and Staphylinidae). Oikos 120, 26–37 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
19.Buckingham, S., Murphy, N. & Gibb, H. Effects of fire severity on the composition and functional traits of litter-dwelling macroinvertebrates in a temperate forest. For. Ecol. Manag. 434, 279–288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2018.12.030 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
20.Niklasson, M. & Granström, A. Numbers and sizes of fires, long-term spatially explicit fire history in a Swedish boreal landscape. Ecology 81, 1484–1499. https://doi.org/10.1890/0012-9658(2000)081[1484:NASOFL]2.0.CO;2 (2000).Article 

Google Scholar 
21.Wikars, L.-O. Immediate effects offire-severity on soil invertebrates in cut and uncut pine forests. For. Ecol. Manag. 141, 189–200 (2001).Article 

Google Scholar 
22.Egorov, L. V., Podshivalina, V. N. & Kurulenko, D. Yu. Postpyrogenic changes in the fauna of arthropods-herpetobionts on the territory of the Prisursky State Nature Reserve. Long-term processes in natural complexes of reserves in Russia. Velikie Luki, 245–249. (in Russian) (2012).23.Gongalsky, K. B. & Persson, T. Recovery of soil macrofauna after wildfires in boreal forests. Soil Biol. Biochem. 57, 182–191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2012.07.005 (2013).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
24Ruchin, A. B., Alekseev, S. K. & Khapugin, A. A. Post-fire fauna of carabid beetles (Coleoptera, Carabidae) in forests of the Mordovia State Nature Reserve (Russia). Nat. Conserv. Res. 4(Suppl. 1), 11–20. https://doi.org/10.24189/ncr.2019.009 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
25.Certini, G. Effects of fire on properties of forest soils: A review. Oecologia 143(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-004-1788-8 (2005).ADS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
26.Buddlea, C. M., Langorb, D. W., Pohlb, G. R. & Spencec, J. R. Arthropod responses to harvesting and wildfire: Implications for emulation of natural disturbance in forest management. Biol. Cons. 128, 346–357. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2005.10.002 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
27.Gongalsky, K. B., Wikars, L.-O. & Persson, T. Ground beetle (Coleoptera: Carabidae) responses to a forest wildfire in northern Europe. Russ. Entomol. J. 17(3), 273–282 (2008).
Google Scholar 
28.Gongalsky, K. B. The spatial distribution of large soil invertebrates on burned areas in xerophilous ecosystems of the Black Sea coast of the Caucasus. Arid. Ecosyst. 17(4), 260–266. https://doi.org/10.1134/S2079096111040068 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
29.Muona, J. & Rutanen, I. The short-term impact offire on the beetle fauna in boreal coniferous forest. Ann. Zool. Fenn. 31, 109–121 (1994).
Google Scholar 
30.Boulanger, Y. & Sirois, L. Postfire succession of saproxylic arthropods, with emphasis on Coleoptera, in the north boreal forest of Quebec. Environ. Entomol. 36(1), 128–141. https://doi.org/10.1603/0046-225X-36.1.128 (2007).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
31.Azeria, E. T., Ibarzabal, J. & Hébert, C. Effects of habitat characteristics and interspecific interactions on co-occurrence patterns of saproxylic beetles breeding in tree boles after forest fire: Null model analyses. Oecologia 168, 1123–1135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-011-2180-0 (2012).ADS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
32.Atchison, R. A., Hulcr, J. & Lucky, A. Managed fire frequency significantly influences the litter arthropod community in longleaf pine Flatwoods. Environ. Entomol. 47, 575–585. https://doi.org/10.1093/ee/nvy038 (2018).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
33.Ulyshen, M. D., Lucky, A. & Work, T. T. Effects of prescribed fire and social insects on saproxylic beetles in a subtropical forest. Sci. Rep. 10, 9630. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-66752-w (2020).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
34.Delettre, Y. R. Fire disturbance of a chironomid (Diptera) community on Heathlands. J. Appl. Ecol. 31(3), 560–570 (1994).Article 

Google Scholar 
35.Swengel, A. B. & Swengel, S. R. Benefit of permanent non-fire refugia for Lepidoptera conservation in fire-managed sites. J. Insect Conserv. 11, 263–279. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10841-006-9042-9 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
36.Sánchez, M. Á. C., Asís, J. D., Gayubo, S. F., Tormos, J. & González, J. A. The effects of wildfire on Spheciformes wasp community structure: The importance of local habitat conditions. J. Insect Conserv. 15(4), 487–503. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10841-010-9322-2 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
37.Elia, M., Lafortezza, R., Tarasco, E., Colangelo, G. & Sanesia, G. The spatial and temporal effects of fire on insect abundance in Mediterranean forest ecosystems. For. Ecol. Manag. 263, 262–267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2011.09.034 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
38.Bogusch, P., Blažej, L., Trýzna, M. & Heneberg, P. Forgotten role of fires in Central European forests: Critical importance of early post-fire successional stages for bees and wasps (Hymenoptera: Aculeata). Eur. J. Forest Res. 134(1), 153–166. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10342-014-0840-4 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
39.Durska, E. Effects of fire on scuttle flies (Diptera: Phoridae) in a pine forest in Poland. Entomologica Fennica. 26, 181–193 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
40.Pons, P. Delayed effects of fire and logging on cicada nymph abundance. J. Insect Conserv. 19, 601–606. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10841-015-9781-6 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
41.Lazarina, M. et al. The effect of fire history in shaping diversity patterns of flower-visiting insects in post-fire Mediterranean pine forests. Biodivers. Conserv. 26, 115–131. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-016-1228-1 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
42Ruchin, A. B. & Khapugin, A. A. Red data book invertebrates in a protected area of European Russia. Acta Zoologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae. 65(4), 349–370. https://doi.org/10.17109/AZH.65.4.349.2019 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
43.Khapugin, A. A. & Silaeva, T. B. The arrangement of threatened plants in Mordovia: The role of biodiversity research centers. Écoscience. 27(3), 157–164. https://doi.org/10.1080/11956860.2020.1753293 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
44.Tereshkin, I. S. & Tereshkina, L. V. Vegetation of the Mordovia Reserve. Successive series of the successions. Proc. Mordovia State Nat. Reserve. 7, 186–287 (2006) (In Russian).
Google Scholar 
45.Bayanov, N. G. Climate changes of the northwest of Mordovia during the period of existence of the Mordovia Reserve according to the meteorological observations in Temnikov. Proc. Mordovia State Nat. Reserve. 14, 212–219 (2015) (In Russian).
Google Scholar 
46.Sieber, A. et al. Landsat-based mapping of post-Soviet land-use change to assess the effectiveness of the Oksky and Mordovsky protected areas in European Russia. Remote Sens. Environ. 133, 38–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2013.01.021 (2013).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
47.Novenko, E. Y. et al. Vegetation dynamics and fire history at the southern boundary of the forest vegetation zone in European Russia during the middle and late Holocene. Holocene 28(2), 308–322. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959683617721331 (2018).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
48.Kharitonova, A. O. & Kharitonova, T. I. The effect of landscape pattern on the 2010 wildfire spread in the Mordovia State Nature Reserve, Russia. Nat. Conserv. Res. 6(2), 29–41. https://doi.org/10.24189/ncr.2021.022 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
49.Khapugin, A. A., Vargot, E. V. & Chugunov, G. G. Vegetation recovery in fire-damaged forests: A case study at the southern boundary of the taiga zone. For. Stud. 64, 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1515/fsmu-2016-0003 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
50.Egorov, L. V., Ruchin, A. B., Semenov, V. B., Semionenkov, O. I. & Semishin, G. B. Checklist of the Coleoptera of Mordovia State Nature Reserve, Russia. ZooKeys. 962, 13–122. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.962.54477 (2020).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
51.Bousquet, Y. Litteratura Coleopterologica (1758–1900): A guide to selected books related to the taxonomy of Coleoptera with publication dates and notes. ZooKeys. 583, 1–776. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.583.7084 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
52Ruchin, A. B., Egorov, L. V., Khapugin, A. A., Vikhrev, N. E. & Esin, M. N. The use of simple crown traps for the insects collection. Nat. Conserv. Res. 5(1), 87–108. https://doi.org/10.24189/ncr.2020.008 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
53.Ryan, K. C. Dynamic interactions between forest structure and fire behavior in boreal ecosystems. Silva Fennica. 36, 13–39 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
54.Turner, M. G., Hargrove, W. W., Gardner, R. H. & Romme, W. H. Effects of fire on landscape heterogeneity in Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming. J. Veg. Sci. 5, 731–742. https://doi.org/10.2307/3235886 (1994).Article 

Google Scholar 
55.BC Wildfire Service. 2020. Wildfire Rank. In: Province of British Columbia. Accessed from: https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/safety/wildfire-status/about-bcws/wildfire-response/fire-characteristics/rank.56.Margalef, R. Information theory in ecology. Gen. Syst. 3, 36–71 (1958).
Google Scholar 
57Shannon, C. E. A mathematical theory of communication. Bell Syst. Techn. J. 27, 379–423 (1948).MathSciNet 
MATH 
Article 

Google Scholar 
58.Magurran, A. E. Ecological Diversity and Its Measurement 179 (Chapman & Hall, 1996).
Google Scholar 
59.Hammer, Ø., Harper, D. A. T. & Ryan, P. D. PAST: Paleontological statistics soft-ware package for education and data analysis. Palaeontol. Electron. 4(1), 9 (2001).
Google Scholar 
60Makarkin, V. N. & Ruchin, A. B. New data on Neuroptera and Raphidioptera of Mordovia (Russia). Kavkazskij Entomologiceskij Bulleten. 15(1), 147–157. https://doi.org/10.23885/181433262019151-147157 (2019) (in Russian).Article 

Google Scholar 
61.Czechowska, W. A comparative analysis of the structure of Neuropteroidea communities of tree canopies in linden-oak-hornbeam forests, light oak forests, mixed coniferous forests and pine forests. Fragm. Faun. 40, 127–168 (1997).Article 

Google Scholar 
62.Volkovich, T. A. Green lacewings (Neuroptera, Chrysopidae) of the «Forest on the Vorskla River» Nature Reserve (Belgorod Province): Fauna and ecology. Entomol. Rev. 81, 884–894 (2001).
Google Scholar 
63.Duelli, P., Obrist, M. K. & Flückiger, P. F. Forest edges are biodiversity hotspots: Also for Neuroptera. Acta Zoologica Hungarica. 48(Suppl. 2), 75–87 (2002).
Google Scholar 
64Ruchin, A. B. & Makarkin, N. V. Neuroptera and raphidioptera in the mordovia state nature reserve. Nat. Conserv. Res. 2(2), 38–46. https://doi.org/10.24189/ncr.2017.001 (2017) (in Russian).Article 

Google Scholar 
65.Aspöck, H. & Aspöck, U. Raphidioptera: Kamelhalsfliegen. Ein Überblick zum Einstieg. Entomologica Austriaca. 16, 53–72 (2009).
Google Scholar 
66.Aspöck, H., Aspöck, U. & Rausch, H. Raphidiopteren-Larven als Bodenbewohner (Insecta, Neuropteroidea) (Mit Beschreibungen der Larven von Ornatoraphidia, Parvoraphidia und Superboraphidia). Zeitschrift für Angewandte Zoologie. 62, 361–375 (1975).
Google Scholar 
67.Aspöck, H., Aspöck, U. & Hölzel, H. Die Neuropteren Europas. Eine zusammenfassende Darstellung der Systematik, Ökologie und Chorologie der Neuropteroidea (Megaloptera, Raphidioptera, Planipennia) Europas. Vols 1 & 2, Goecke and Evers, Krefeld, pp. 495–455 (1980).68.Kurochkin, A. S. Fauna and bionomy of sap beetles (Coleoptera, Nitidulidae) and kateretid beetles (Coleoptera, Kateretidae) of Krasnosamarskoe forestry farm (Samara Region, Russia): Vestnik of Samara University. Nat. Sci. Ser. 8(58), 120–128 (2007) (in Russian).
Google Scholar 
69.Oude, J. E. Naamlijst van de glanskevers van Nederland en het omliggende gebied (Coleoptera: Nitidulidae and Brachypteridae). Nederlandse Faunistische Mededelinge. 8, 11–32 (1999).
Google Scholar 
70.Alekseev, V. I. & Nikitsky, N. B. Rare and new for the fauna of the Baltic States beetles (Coleoptera) from the Kaliningrad Region. Acta Zoologica Lituanica. 18(4), 254–259 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
71.Lasoń, A. & Holly, M. Glischrochilus grandis Tournier, 1872: New species of beetle for the Polish fauna and new data on the occurrence of genus Glischrochilus Reitter, 1873 (Cole-optera: Nitidulidae: Cryptarchinae). Acta entomologica silesiana. 23, 1–4 (2015).
Google Scholar 
72.Nikitsky, N. B., Osipov, I. N., Chemeris, M. V., Semenov, V. B. & Gusakov, A. A. The beetles of the Prioksko-Terrasny Biosphere Reserve: Xylobiontes, mycetobiontes and Scarabaeidae. Arch. Zool. Museum Moscow State Univ. XXXVI, 1–197 (1996) (in Russian).
Google Scholar 
73.Tauzin, P. Ethologie et chorologie de Protaetia (Liocola) lugubris Herbst, 1786 sur le territoire français (Coleoptera, Cetoniidae, Cetoniinae, Cetoniini). Cetoniimania. 3(1+2), 4–38 (2006).
Google Scholar 
74.Oleksa, A., Chybicki, I. J., Gawronski, R., Svensson, G. P. & Burczyk, J. Isolation by distance in saproxylic beetles may increase with niche specialization. J. Insects Conserv. 17, 219–233. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10841-012-9499-7 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
75.Urban, P. & Schulze, W. Ein aktueller Nachweis des Marmorierten Rosenkäfers Protaetia marmorata (Fabricius, 1792) in der Senne (Nordrhein-Westfalen) (Mitteilungen zur Insektenfauna Westfalens XXII). Mitteilungen der Arbeitsgemeinschaft westfälischer Entomologen. 33(1), 15–19 (2017).
Google Scholar 
76Ruchin, A. B., Egorov, L. V. & Khapugin, A. A. Seasonal activity of Coleoptera attracted by fermental crown traps in forest ecosystems of Central Russia. Ecol. Questions. 32(1), 37–53. https://doi.org/10.12775/EQ.2021.004 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
77.Oleksa, A., Ulrich, W. & Gawronski, R. Occurrence of the marbled rose-chafer (Protaetia lugubris Herbst, Coleoptera, Cetoniidae) in rural avenues in northern Poland. J. Insects Conserv. 10, 241–247. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10841-005-4830-1 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
78.Nikitsky, N. B. & Vlasov, D. V. Family Scarabaeidae Latreille, 1802. In: Nikitsky N.B. The beetles (Insecta, Coleoptera) of the Moscow oblast. Part. 1. Direct MEDIA. pp. 643–679 (2016) (in Russian).79.Ruchin, A. B., Egorov, L. V., Sazhnev, A. S., Polumordvinov, O. A. & Ishin, R. N. Present distribution of Protaetia fieberi (Kraatz, 1880) (Insecta, Coleoptera, Scarabaeidae) in the European part of Russia. Biharean Biologist. 13(1), 12–16 (2019).
Google Scholar 
80.Tauzin, P. Chorologie et éco-éthologie de Protaetia (Potosia) fieberi Kraatz 1880 en France (Coleoptera, Cetoniinae, Cetoniini). Cetoniimania. 3(4), 115–146 (2007).
Google Scholar 
81Bílý, S. & Mehl, O. Longhorn Beetles (Coleoptera, Cerambycidae) of Fennoscandia and Denmark 200 (Brill, 1989).
Google Scholar 
82.Gutowski, J. M., Ługowoj, J. & Maciejewski, K. H. Leptura thoracica Creutzer, 1799 (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) in Poland. Wiad. Entomol. 13(3), 157–165 (1994) (in Polish).
Google Scholar 
83.Sama, G. Atlas of the Cerambycidae of Europe and the Mediterranean Area. Vol. 1. Northern, Western, Central and Eastern Europe British Isles and Continental Europe from France (excl. Corsica) to Scandinavia and Urals. Kabourek, Zlín, p. 173 (2002).84.Karpiński, L., Szczepański, W. T., Boldgiv, B. & Walczak, M. New data on the longhorn beetles of Mongolia with particular emphasis on the genus Eodorcadion Breuning, 1947 (Coleoptera, Cerambycidae). ZooKeys. 739, 107–150. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.739.23675 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
85.Danilevsky, M. L., Ruchin, A. B. & Egorov, L. V. Mass collection of two rare longicorn-species (Coleoptera, Cerambycidae) in Central Russia. Humanity space. 8(9), 1179–1183 (2019).
Google Scholar 
86Ruchin, A. B. & Egorov, L. V. Fauna of longicorn beetles (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) of Mordovia. Russ. Entomol. J. 27(2), 161–177. https://doi.org/10.15298/rusentj.27.2.07 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
87.Ruchin, A. B., Egorov, L. V. & Khapugin, A. A. Usage of fermental traps for studying the species diversity of Coleoptera. Insects. 12, 407. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects12050407 (2021).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
88.Cherepanov, A. I. The Longhorn Beetles of Northern Asia (Prioninae, Disteniinae, Lepturinae, Aseminae) 472 (Nauka Publ, 1979).
Google Scholar 
89Starzyk, J. R. & Partyka, M. Study on the morphology, biology and distribution of Obrium cantharinum (L.) (Col., Cerambycidae). J. Appl. Entomol. 116(1–5), 333–344. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0418.1993.tb01205.x (1993).Article 

Google Scholar 
90.Lindhe, A., Jeppsson, T. & Ehnstrom, B. Longhorn beetles in Sweden changes in distribution and abundance over the last two hundred years. Entomologisk Tidskrift. 131(4), 241–508 (2010).
Google Scholar 
91.Egorov, L. V. & Sysoletina, L. G. On the anthophilic longhorn beetles of the Chuvash ASSR. Terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, pp. 92–104 (1986) (in Russian).92.Moretti, M. & Barbalat, S. The effects of wildfires on wood-eating beetles in deciduous forests on the southern slope of the Swiss Alps. For. Ecol. Manag. 187(1), 85–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-1127(03)00314-1 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
93.Brodie, B. S. et al. Non-lethal monitoring of longicorn beetle communities using generic pheromone lures and occupancy models. Ecol. Ind. 101, 330–340. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2019.01.038 (2019).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
94.Grundel, R., Pavlovic, N. B. & Sulzman, C. L. Habitat use by the endangered Karner blue butterfly in oak woodlands: The influence of canopy cover. Biol. Cons. 85, 47–53 (1998).Article 

Google Scholar 
95.Huntzinger, M. Effects of fire management practices on butterfly diversity in the forested western United States. Biol. Cons. 113(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0006-3207(02)00356-7 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
96Elia, M., Lafortezza, R., Tarasco, E., Colangelo, G. & Sanesi, G. Influenza degli incendi boschivi sulla biodiversità dell’entomofauna: Un caso di studio in Puglia. Forest 8, 13–21 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
97.Vogel, J. A., Koford, R. R. & Debinski, D. M. Direct and indirect responses of tallgrass prairie butterflies to prescribed burning. J. Insect Conserv. 14, 663–677. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10841-010-9295-1 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
98.Swengel, A. B. Effects of fire and hay management on abundance of prairie butterflies. Biol. Cons. 76, 73–85 (1996).Article 

Google Scholar 
99Ruchin, A. & Antropov, A. Wasp fauna (Hymenoptera: Bethylidae, Chrysididae, Dryinidae, Tiphiidae, Mutllidae, Scoliidae, Pompilidae, Vespidae, Sphecidae, Crabronidae & Trigonalyidae) of Mordovia State Nature Reserve and its surroundings in Russia. J. Threatened Taxa. 11(2), 13195–13250. https://doi.org/10.11609/jot.4216.11.2.13195-13250 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
100.Dvořák, L. Social wasps (Hymenoptera: Vespidae) trapped with beer in European forest ecosystems. Acta Mus. Morav. Sci. Biol. (Brno) 92, 181–204 (2007).
Google Scholar 
101Sorvari, J. Social wasp (Hymenoptera: Vespidae) beer trapping in Finland 2008–2012: A German surprise. Entomologica Fennica. 24(3), 156–164. https://doi.org/10.33338/ef.8983 (2013).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
102Pesson, P. & Louveaux, J. Pollinisation et productions végétales 663 (INRA, 1984).
Google Scholar 
103.Richter, M. R. Social wasp (Hymenoptera: Vespidae) foraging behavior. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 45(1), 121–150. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ento.45.1.121 (2000).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
104.Kasper, M. L., Reeson, A. F., Mackay, D. A. & Austin, A. D. Environmental factors influencing daily foraging activity of Vespula germanica (Hymenoptera, Vespidae) in Mediterranean Australia. Insectes Soc. 55, 288–295. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00040-008-1004-7 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
105Clemente, M. A. et al. Impacts of fire in social wasps community in an area of regenerating brazilian savanna. Sociobiology 66(4), 582–591. https://doi.org/10.13102/sociobiology.v66i4.3590 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
106.Raveret-Richter, M. Social wasp (Hymenoptera: Vespidae) foraging behavior. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 45, 121–150. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ento.45.1.121 (2000).Article 

Google Scholar 
107.Jeanne, R. L. The adaptiveness of social wasp nest architecture. Q. Rev. Biol. 50, 267–287 (1975).Article 

Google Scholar 
108Wenzel, J. W. Evolution of nest architecture. In The Social Biology of Wasps (eds Ross, K. G. & Matthews, R. W.) 480–519 (Cornell University Press, 1991).
Google Scholar 
109Dvořák, L., Dvořáková, K., Oboňa, J. & Ruchin, A. B. Selected Diptera families caught with beer traps in the Republic of Mordovia (Russia). Nat. Conserv. Res. 5(4), 65–77. https://doi.org/10.24189/ncr.2020.057 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
110Krivosheina, N. P. Family Anisopodidae. In Manual of Palaearctic Diptera (eds Papp, L. & Darvas, B.) 239–248 (Science Herald, 1997).
Google Scholar 
111.Rotheray, G. E. Development sites, feeding modes and early stages of seven European Palloptera species (Diptera, Pallopteridae). Zootaxa 3900(1), 50–76 (2014).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
112Ruchin, A. B., Carr, J. F., Dvořák, L., Esin, M. N. & Khapugin, A. A. Pseudotephritis millepunctata (Hennig, 1939) (Diptera Ulidiidae): New species in European fauna. REDIA. 103, 25–27. https://doi.org/10.19263/REDIA-103.20.05 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
113Krivosheina, N. P. & Krivosheina, M. G. Saproxylic Diptera (Insecta) of the Lazovsky State Nature Reserve (Russia). Nat. Conserv. Res. 4(3), 78–92. https://doi.org/10.24189/ncr.2019.052 (2019) (in Russian).Article 

Google Scholar 
114.Bächli, G. & Rocha Pité, M. T. Family Drosophilidae. P. 186–220. In: Catalogue of Palaearctic Diptera. Vol. 10. Clusiidae–Chloropidae. Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest (1984).115.Gornostaev, N. G. A review of drosophilid flies (Diptera, Drosophilidae) of Middle Asia and Kazakhstan. Entomologicheskoe Obozrenie. 74(1), 214–223 (1995).
Google Scholar 
116.Gornostaev, N. G. Addition to the fauna of drosophilid flies (Diptera, Drosophilidae) of Russia. Russ. Entomol. J. 6(1–2), 113–118 (1997).
Google Scholar 
117.Gornostaev, N. G. Ecological classification of drosophilid flies (Diptera, Drosophilidae). Entomologicheskoe Obozrenie. 75(3), 698–705 (1996).
Google Scholar 
118.Máca, J. Revision of Palaearctic species of Amiota subg. Phortica (Diptera, Drosophilidae). Acta ent. bohemoslov. 74, 115–130 (1977).
Google Scholar 
119.Bächli, G. & Thunes, K. Leucophenga quinquemaculata Strobl (Diptera, Drosophilidae) from Norway. Fauna Norvegica. 39(2), 81–84 (1992).
Google Scholar 
120.Jonsell, M., Nordlander, G. & Jonsson, M. Colonization patterns of insects breeding in wood-decaying fungi. J. Insect Conserv. 3, 145–161 (1999).Article 

Google Scholar 
121.Edwards, F. W. Amiota alboguttata Wahlb. in Dorset (Diptera, Drosophilidae). Entomologist. 69, 218 (1936).
Google Scholar 
122.Kovalev, V. G. Faunistic and ecological material on flies of the genus Lonchaea (Diptera, Lonchaeidae) from Tuva. Entomologicheskoe Obozrenie. 55, 934–945 (1976).
Google Scholar 
123.MacGowan, I. & Rotheray, G. E. British Lonchaeidae. Diptera, Cyclorrhapha, Acalyptratae. Handbooks for the Identification of British Insects, 10 (15). Royal Entomological Society, London (2008).124.Godfrey, A. Lonchaea carpathica Kovalev (Diptera, Lonchaeidae) new to Britain and other Diptera from Cherkley Wood, Leatherhead. Surrey. Dipterists Digest (Second Series) 24, 153–155 (2017) ([in Russian]).
Google Scholar 
125.MacGowan, I., Vikhrev, N. E., Krivosheina, M. G., Ruchin, A. B. & Esin, M. N. New records of Diptera from the Republic of Mordovia. Russ. Far Eastern Entomol. 423, 9–20. https://doi.org/10.25221/fee.423.3 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
126.Gaponov, S. P. & Panteleeva, NYu. New data of saprobiont larval feeding habits of Brachycera (Diptera) in the Middle Podonye: III: Superfamilies Muscoidea and Oestroidea. Proc. Voronezh State Univ Ser. Chem. Biol. Pharm. 1, 49–56 (2017) (in Russian).
Google Scholar 
127Vikhrev, N. E. & Erofeeva, E. A. Review of the Phaonia pallida group (Diptera: Muscidae). Russ. Entomol. J. 27, 315–322. https://doi.org/10.15298/rusentj.27.3.14 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
128.Gisondi, S., Rognes, K., Badano, D., Pape, T. & Cerretti, P. The world Polleniidae (Diptera, Oestroidea): Key to genera and checklist of species. ZooKeys. 971, 105–155. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.971.51283 (2020).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
129.Duelli, P., Obrist, M. K. & Wermelinger, B. Windthrow induces changes of faunistic biodiversity in alpine spruce forests. For. Snow Landsc. Res. 77(1/2), 117–131 (2002).
Google Scholar 
130.Moretti, M., Duelli, P. & Obrist, M. K. Biodiversity and resilience of arthropod communities after fire disturbance in temperate forests. Oecologia 149(2), 312–327. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-006-0450-z (2006).ADS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
131.Campbell, J. W. et al. Response of beetles (Coleoptera) to repeated applications of prescribed fire and other fuel reduction techniques in the southern Appalachian Mountains. For. Ecol. Manag. 429, 294–299. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2018.07.022 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
132Chen, Z. Z. et al. Response of Chrysoperla nipponensis (Okamoto) (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae) Under Long and Short Photoperiods. J. Insect Sci. 17(2), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1093/jisesa/iex005 (2017).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
133.Swengel, A. B. A literature review of insect responses to fire, compared to other conservation managements of open habitat. Biodivers. Conserv. 10, 1141–1169. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016683807033 (2001).Article 

Google Scholar 
134Gongalsky, K. B. Perfugia as a mechanism for the recovery of soil fauna after ecosystem disturbances. Russ. J. Ecosyst. Ecol. 2(4), 1. https://doi.org/10.21685/2500-0578-2017-4-3 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
135.Hjältén, J. et al. Forest restoration by burning and gap cutting of voluntary set-asides yield distinct immediate effects on saproxylic beetles. Biodivers. Conserv. 26, 1623–1640. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-017-1321-0 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
136.Gutowski, J. M. et al. Post-fire beetle succession in a biodiversity hotspot: Białowieża Primeval Forest. For. Ecol. Manag. 461, 117893. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2020.117893 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar  More

1.Chen, J., Sun, S., Li, C. Z., Zhu, Y. G. & Rosen, B. P. Biosensor for organoarsenical herbicides and growth promoters. Environ. Sci. Technol. 48, 1141 (2014).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
2.Ghosh, N. & Singh, R. Groundwater Arsenic Contamination in India: Vulnerability and Scope for Remedy (National Institute of Hydrology, 2009).
Google Scholar 
3.Luong, J. H. T., Lam, E. & Male, K. B. Recent advances in electrochemical detection of arsenic in drinking and ground waters. Anal. Methods 6, 6157 (2014).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
4.Naujokas, M. F. et al. The broad scope of health effects from chronic arsenic exposure: Update on a worldwide public health problem. Environ. Health Perspect. 121, 295 (2013).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
5.Ahmad, S. A., Khan, M. H. & Haque, M. Arsenic contamination in groundwater in Bangladesh: Implications and challenges for healthcare policy. Risk Manage. Healthcare Policy 11, 251 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
6.Sultana, M. et al. Investigation of arsenotrophic microbiome in arsenic-affected Bangladesh groundwater. Groundwater 55, 736 (2017).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
7.Shakoor, M. B. et al. Remediation of arsenic-contaminated water using agricultural wastes as biosorbents. Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol. 46, 467 (2016).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
8.Natasha, et al. Arsenic environmental contamination status in South Asia. Arsenic Drink. Water Food. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-8587-2_2 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
9.Choudhury, M. I. M. et al. Cutaneous malignancy due to arsenicosis in Bangladesh: 12-year study in tertiary level hospital. Biomed. Res. Int. 2018, 4678362 (2018).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
10.Arsenic—Banglapedia. https://en.banglapedia.org/index.php/Arsenic. (Accessed 28 June 2021)11.Arsenic Contamination in Water: No proper study done in years|The Daily Star. https://www.thedailystar.net/backpage/news/arsenic-contamination-water-no-proper-study-done-years-2064585. (Accessed 19 June 2021)12.Martinez, V. D., Vucic, E. A., Becker-Santos, D. D., Gil, L. & Lam, W. L. Arsenic exposure and the induction of human cancers. J. Toxicol. 2011, 431287 (2011).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
13.Argos, M. et al. Arsenic exposure from drinking water, and all-cause and chronic-disease mortalities in Bangladesh (HEALS): A prospective cohort study. Lancet 376, 252 (2010).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
14.Mujawar, S. Y., Shamim, K., Vaigankar, D. C. & Dubey, S. K. Arsenite biotransformation and bioaccumulation by Klebsiella pneumoniae strain SSSW7 possessing arsenite oxidase (aioA) gene. Biometals 32, 65 (2019).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
15.Masscheleyn, P. H., Delaune, R. D. & Patrick, W. H. Effect of redox potential and pH on arsenic speciation and solubility in a contaminated soil. Environ. Sci. Technol. 25, 1414 (1991).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
16.Jain, C. K. & Ali, I. Arsenic: Occurrence, toxicity and speciation techniques. Water Res. 34, 4304 (2000).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
17.Garelick, H., Dybowska, A., Valsami-Jones, E. & Priest, N. D. Remediation technologies for arsenic contaminated drinking waters. J. Soils Sediments 5, 182 (2005).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
18.Kruger, M. C., Bertin, P. N., Heipieper, H. J. & Arsène-Ploetze, F. Bacterial metabolism of environmental arsenic—Mechanisms and biotechnological applications. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 97, 3827 (2013).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
19.Rahman, A. et al. Isolation and characterization of a Lysinibacillus strain B1-CDA showing potential for bioremediation of arsenics from contaminated water. J. Environ. Sci. Health A 49, 1349 (2014).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
20.Halttunen, T., Finell, M. & Salminen, S. Arsenic removal by native and chemically modified lactic acid bacteria. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 120, 173 (2007).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
21.Mondal, P., Majumder, C. B. & Mohanty, B. Growth of three bacteria in arsenic solution and their application for arsenic removal from wastewater. J. Basic Microbiol. 48, 521 (2008).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
22.Banerjee, S., Datta, S., Chattyopadhyay, D. & Sarkar, P. Arsenic accumulating and transforming bacteria isolated from contaminated soil for potential use in bioremediation. J. Environ. Sci. Health A 46, 1736 (2011).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
23.Bahar, M. M., Megharaj, M. & Naidu, R. Arsenic bioremediation potential of a new arsenite-oxidizing bacterium Stenotrophomonas sp. MM-7 isolated from soil. Biodegradation 23, 803 (2012).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
24.Lozano, L. C. & Dussán, J. Metal tolerance and larvicidal activity of Lysinibacillus sphaericus. World J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 29, 1383 (2013).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
25.Corsini, A. et al. Characterization of As(III) oxidizing Achromobacter sp. strain N2: Effects on arsenic toxicity and translocation in rice. Ann. Microbiol. 68, 295 (2018).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
26.Istiaq, A. et al. Adaptation of metal and antibiotic resistant traits in novel β-Proteobacterium Achromobacter xylosoxidans BHW-15. PeerJ 2019, e6537 (2019).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
27.Hamamura, N. et al. Identification of anaerobic arsenite-oxidizing and arsenate-reducing bacteria associated with an alkaline saline lake in Khovsgol, Mongolia. Environ. Microbiol. Rep. 6, 476 (2014).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
28.Ehrlich, H. L., Newman, D. K. & Kappler, A. Geomicrobiology (CRC Press, 2008).Book 

Google Scholar 
29.Bahar, M. M., Megharaj, M. & Naidu, R. Bioremediation of arsenic-contaminated water: Recent advances and future prospects. Water Air Soil Pollut. 224, 1–20 (2013).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
30.Hamamura, N. et al. Linking microbial oxidation of arsenic with detection and phylogenetic analysis of arsenite oxidase genes in diverse geothermal environments. Environ. Microbiol. 11, 421 (2009).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
31.Hamamura, N. Distribution of aerobic arsenite oxidase genes within the aquificales. In Tokyo: TERRAPUB, 47–55 (2010).32.Andreoni, V. et al. Arsenite oxidation in Ancylobacter dichloromethanicus As3-1b strain: Detection of genes involved in arsenite oxidation and CO2 fixation. Curr. Microbiol. 65, 212 (2012).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
33.Lett, M. C., Muller, D., Lièvremont, D., Silver, S. & Santini, J. Unified nomenclature for genes involved in prokaryotic aerobic arsenite oxidation. J. Bacteriol. 194, 207 (2012).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
34.Zargar, K. et al. ArxA, a new clade of arsenite oxidase within the DMSO reductase family of molybdenum oxidoreductases. Environ. Microbiol. 14, 1635 (2012).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
35.Engel, A. S., Johnson, L. R. & Porter, M. L. Arsenite oxidase gene diversity among Chloroflexi and Proteobacteria from El Tatio Geyser field, Chile. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 83, 745 (2013).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
36.Drewniak, L. & Sklodowska, A. Arsenic-transforming microbes and their role in biomining processes. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 20, 7728 (2013).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
37.Jiang, Z. et al. Diversity and abundance of the arsenite oxidase gene aioA in geothermal areas of Tengchong, Yunnan, China. Extremophiles 18, 161 (2014).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
38.Wu, G. et al. Distribution of arsenite-oxidizing bacteria and its correlation with temperature in hot springs of the Tibetan-Yunnan geothermal zone in western China. Geomicrobiol. J. 32, 482 (2015).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
39.Hernandez-Maldonado, J. et al. The genetic basis of anoxygenic photosynthetic arsenite oxidation. Environ. Microbiol. 19, 130 (2017).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
40.Rahman, M. M., Hussain, M. M. & Asiri, A. M. A novel approach towards hydrazine sensor development using SrO·CNT nanocomposites. RSC Adv. 6, 65338 (2016).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
41.Rahman, M. M., Hussain, M. M. & Asiri, A. M. Fabrication of 3-methoxyphenol sensor based on Fe3O4 decorated carbon nanotube nanocomposites for environmental safety: Real sample analyses. PLoS ONE 12, e0177817 (2017).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
42.Hussain, M. M., Rahman, M. M. & Asiri, A. M. Ultrasensitive and selective 4-aminophenol chemical sensor development based on nickel oxide nanoparticles decorated carbon nanotube nanocomposites for green environment. J. Environ. Sci. (China) 53, 27 (2017).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
43.Pous, N. et al. Anaerobic arsenite oxidation with an electrode serving as the sole electron acceptor: A novel approach to the bioremediation of arsenic-polluted groundwater. J. Hazard. Mater. 283, 617 (2015).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
44.Watanabe, T., Kojima, H. & Fukui, M. Complete genomes of freshwater sulfur oxidizers Sulfuricella denitrificans skB26 and Sulfuritalea hydrogenivorans sk43H: Genetic insights into the sulfur oxidation pathway of betaproteobacteria. Syst. Appl. Microbiol. 37, 387 (2014).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
45.Mandal, B. Arsenic round the world: A review. Talanta 58, 201 (2002).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
46.Mukhopadhyay, R., Rosen, B. P., Phung, L. T. & Silver, S. Microbial arsenic: From geocycles to genes and enzymes. FEMS Microbiol. Rev. 26, 311 (2002).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
47.Oremland, R. S. et al. Anaerobic oxidation of arsenite in Mono Lake water and by a facultative, arsenite-oxidizing chemoautotroph, strain MLHE-1. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 68, 4795 (2002).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
48.Purakayastha, T. J. Detoxification of Heavy Metals (Springer, 2011).
Google Scholar 
49.Silver, S. & Phung, L. T. Bacterial heavy metal resistance: New surprises. Annu. Rev. Microbiol. 50, 753 (1996).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
50.Agarwal, M., Rathore, R. S. & Chauhan, A. A rapid and high throughput MIC determination method to screen uranium resistant microorganisms. Methods Protoc. 3(1), 21. https://doi.org/10.3390/mps3010021 (2020).CAS 
Article 
PubMed Central 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
51.Johnson, D. B., Okibe, N. & Roberto, F. F. Novel thermo-acidophilic bacteria isolated from geothermal sites in Yellowstone National Park: Physiological and phylogenetic characteristics. Arch. Microbiol. 180, 60 (2003).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
52.Cai, L., Liu, G., Rensing, C. & Wang, G. Genes involved in arsenic transformation and resistance associated with different levels of arsenic-contaminated soils. BMC Microbiol. 9, 1–11 (2009).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
53.Achour, A. R., Bauda, P. & Billard, P. Diversity of arsenite transporter genes from arsenic-resistant soil bacteria. Res. Microbiol. 158, 128 (2007).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
54.Cervantes, C., Ji, G., Ramirez, J. & Silver, S. Resistance to arsenic compounds in microorganisms. FEMS Microbiol. Rev. 15, 355 (1994).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
55.Majumder, A., Ghosh, S., Saha, N., Kole, S. C. & Sarkar, S. Arsenic accumulating bacteria isolated from soil for possible application in bioremediation. J. Environ. Biol. 34, 841 (2013).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
56.Takeuchi, M. et al. Arsenic resistance and removal by marine and non-marine bacteria. J. Biotechnol. 127, 434 (2007).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
57.Velásquez, L. & Dussan, J. Biosorption and bioaccumulation of heavy metals on dead and living biomass of Bacillus sphaericus. J. Hazard. Mater. 167, 713 (2009).PubMed 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
58.Pandey, N. & Bhatt, R. Arsenic resistance and accumulation by two bacteria isolated from a natural arsenic contaminated site. J. Basic Microbiol. 55, 1275 (2015).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
59.Zolgharnein, H., Karami, K., Assadi, M. M. & Sohrab, A. D. Molecular characterization and phylogenetic analyses of heavy metal removal bacteria from the Persian gulf. Biotechnology 9, 1–8 (2010).CAS 

Google Scholar 
60.Valenzuela, C. et al. Arsenite oxidation by Pseudomonas arsenicoxydans immobilized on zeolite and its potential biotechnological application. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 94, 667 (2015).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
61.Li, X. et al. Genome sequence of the highly efficient arsenite-oxidizing bacterium Achromobacter arsenitoxydans SY8. J. Bacteriol. 194, 1243 (2012).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
62.Fan, H. et al. Sedimentary arsenite-oxidizing and arsenate-reducing bacteria associated with high arsenic groundwater from Shanyin, Northwestern China. J. Appl. Microbiol. 105, 529 (2008).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
63.Liu, G. et al. A periplasmic arsenite-binding protein involved in regulating arsenite oxidation. Environ. Microbiol. 14, 1624 (2012).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
64.Yan, G. et al. Genetic mechanisms of arsenic detoxification and metabolism in bacteria. Curr. Genet. 65, 329 (2019).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
65.Wang, G., Huang, Y. & Li, J. Bacteria live on arsenic analysis of microbial arsenic metabolism—A review. Acta Microbiol. Sin. 51, 154 (2011).CAS 

Google Scholar 
66.Rosen, B. P. Biochemistry of arsenic detoxification. FEBS Lett. 529, 86 (2002).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
67.Jahid, I. K., Lee, N. Y., Kim, A. & Ha, S. D. Influence of glucose concentrations on biofilm formation, motility, exoprotease production, and quorum sensing in aeromonas hydrophila. J. Food Prot. 76, 239 (2013).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
68.Hassan, Z. et al. Ample arsenite bio-oxidation activity in Bangladesh drinking water wells: A bonanza for bioremediation? Microorganisms 7, 246 (2019).CAS 
PubMed Central 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
69.Dhar, R. K., Zheng, Y., Rubenstone, J. & Van Geen, A. A rapid colorimetric method for measuring arsenic concentrations in groundwater. Anal. Chim. Acta 526, 203 (2004).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
70.Cummings, D. E., Caccavo, F., Fendorf, S. & Rosenzweig, R. F. Arsenic mobilization by the dissimilatory Fe(III)-reducing bacterium Shewanella alga BrY. Environ. Sci. Technol. 33, 723 (1999).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
71.Geetanjali, P. & Bhosale, S. P. B. Isolation and characterization of arsenate reducing bacteria from the waste water of an electroplating industry. Int. J. Curr. Microbiol. Appl. Sci. 3, 444–452 (2014).
Google Scholar 
72.Sanyal, S. K. et al. Diversity of arsenite oxidase gene and arsenotrophic bacteria in arsenic affected Bangladesh soils. AMB Express 6, 1–11 (2016).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
73.Kumar, S., Stecher, G., Tamura, K. & Dudley, J. MEGA7: Molecular evolutionary genetics analysis version 7.0 for bigger datasets. Mol. Biol. Evol 33, 1870–1874 (2016).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
74.Khan, M. Z. H., Liu, X., Tang, Y. & Liu, X. Ultra-sensitive electrochemical detection of oxidative stress biomarker 8-hydroxy-2′-deoxyguanosine with poly (L-arginine)/graphene wrapped Au nanoparticles modified electrode. Biosens. Bioelectron. 117, 508 (2018).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar  More

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain
the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in
Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles
and JavaScript. More

1.Macrae, T. C. et al. Laboratory and field evaluations of transgenic soybean exhibiting high-dose expression of a synthetic Bacillus thuringiensis cry1A gene for control of Lepidoptera. J. Econ. Entomol. 98, 577–587 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
2.Miklos, J. A. et al. Characterization of soybean exhibiting high expression of a synthetic Bacillus thuringiensis cry1A transgene that confers a high degree of resistance to lepidopteran pests. Crop Sci. 47, 148–157 (2007).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
3.Spark. BIP soja 2021. Spark Smarter Decisions, Valinhos, SP. http://spark-ie.com.br (2021).4.Bernardi, O. et al. Assessment of the high dose concept and level of control provided by MON 87701 × MON 89788 soybean against Anticarsia gemmatalis and Pseudoplusia includens (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in Brazil. Pest Manag. Sci. 68, 1083–1091 (2012).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
5.Bernardi, O. et al. High levels of biological activity of Cry1Ac protein expressed on MON 87701 × MON 89788 soybean against Heliothis virescens (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Pest Manag. Sci. 70, 588–594 (2014).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
6.Dourado, P. M. et al. High susceptibility to Cry1Ac and low resistance allele frequency reduce the risk of resistance of Helicoverpa armigera to Bt soybean in Brazil. PLoS ONE 11, e0161388 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
7.Horikoshi, R. J. et al. Large-scale assessment of lepidopteran soybean pests and efficacy of Cry1Ac soybean in Brazil. Sci. Rep. 11, 15956 (2021).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
8.Gould, F. Sustainability of transgenic insecticidal cultivars: integrating pest genetics and ecology. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 43, 701–726 (1998).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
9.Tabashnik, B. E., Van Rensburg, J. B. J. & Carrière, Y. Field-evolved insect resistance to Bt crops: Definition, theory and data. J. Econ. Entomol. 102, 2011–2025 (2009).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
10.Yano, S. A. et al. High susceptibility and low resistance allele frequency of Chrysodeixis includens (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) field populations to Cry1Ac in Brazil. Pest Manag. Sci. 72, 1578–1584 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
11.Tabashnik, B. E. & Carrière, Y. Surge in insect resistance to transgenic crops and prospects for sustainability. Nat. Biotechnol. 35, 926–935 (2017).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
12.CTNBio– Comissão Técnica Nacional de Biossegurança. Technical Opinion No. 2542/2010-Commercial release of genetically modified insect-resistant and herbicide-tolerant soy containing genetically modified events MON 87701 and MON 89788. http://ctnbio.mctic.gov.br/en/liberacao-comercial#/liberacao-comercial/consultar-processo (2010).13.Van Rensburg, J. B. J. First report of field resistance by stem borer, Busseola fusca (Fuller) to Bt-transgenic maize. S. Afr. J. Plant Soil 24, 147–151 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
14.Storer, N. P. et al. Discovery and characterization of field resistance to Bt maize: Spodoptera frugiperda (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in Puerto Rico. J. Econ. Entomol. 103, 1031–1038 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
15.Dhurua, S. & Gujar, G. T. Field-evolved resistance to Bt toxin Cry1Ac in the pink bollworm, Pectinophora gossypiella (Saunders) (Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae), from India. Pest Manag. Sci. 67, 898–903 (2011).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
16.Gassmann, A. J., Petzold-Maxwell, J. L., Keweshan, R. S. & Dunbar, M. W. Field-evolved resistance to Bt maize by western corn rootworm. PLoS ONE 6, e22629 (2011).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
17.Farias, J. R. et al. Field-evolved resistance to Cry1F maize by Spodoptera frugiperda (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in Brazil. Crop Prot. 64, 150–158 (2014).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
18.Bernardi, D. et al. Cross-resistance between Cry1 proteins in fall armyworm (Spodoptera frugiperda) may affect the durability of current pyramided Bt maize hybrids in Brazil. PLoS ONE 10, e0140130 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
19.Mohan, K. S., Ravi, K. C., Suresh, P. J., Sumerford, D. & Head, G. P. Field resistance to the Bacillus thuringiensis protein Cry1Ac expressed in Bollgard hybrid cotton in pink bollworm, Pectinophora gossypiella (Saunders), populations in India. Pest Manag. Sci. 72, 738–746 (2016).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
20.Omoto, C. O. et al. Field-evolved resistance to Cry1Ab maize by Spodoptera frugiperda in Brazil. Pest Manag. Sci. 72, 1727–1736 (2016).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
21.Naik, V. C., Kumbhare, S., Kranthi, S., Satija, U. & Kranthi, K. R. Field-evolved resistance of pink bollworm, Pectinophora gossypiella (Saunders) (Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae), to transgenic Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) cotton expressing crystal 1Ac (Cry1Ac) and Cry2Ab in India. Pest Manag. Sci. 74, 2544–2554 (2018).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
22.Sanchez, N. E. & Pereyra, P. C. Life tables of the soybean looper Rachiplusia nu (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in the laboratory. Rev. Soc. Entomol. Arg. 54, 89–96 (1995).
Google Scholar 
23.Sánchez, N. E., Pereyra, P. C. & Gentile, M. V. Population parameters of Epinotia aporema (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) on soybean. Rev. Soc. Entomol. Arg. 56, 151–153 (1997).
Google Scholar 
24.Barrionuevo, M. J., Murúa, M. G., Goane, L., Meagher, R. & Navarro, F. Life table studies of Rachiplusia nu (Guenée) and Chrysodeixis (= Pseudoplusia) includens (Walker) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) on artificial diet. Fla. Entomol. 95, 944–951 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
25.Ferreira, B. S. C. Sampling Epinotia aporema on Soybean in Sampling Methods in Soybean Entomology (eds. Kogan, M. & Herzog, D. C) 374–381 (Springer 1980).26.Specht, A. et al. Biotic potential and life tables of Chrysodeixis includens (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae), Rachiplusia nu, and Trichoplusia ni on soybean and forage turnip. J. Insect Sci. 19, 1–8 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
27.Santos, S. R. D., Specht, A., Carneiro, E. & Casagrande, M. M. The influence of agricultural occupation and climate on the spatial distribution of Plusiinae (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) on a latitudinal gradient in Brazil. Rev. Bras. Entomol. 65, e20200103 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
28.Greene, G. L., Leppla, N. C. & Dickerson, W. A. Velvetbean caterpillar: A rearing procedure and artificial medium. J. Econ. Entomol. 69, 487–488 (1976).Article 

Google Scholar 
29.Andow, D. A. & Alstad, D. N. F2 screen for rare resistance alleles. J. Econ. Entomol. 91, 572–578 (1998).Article 

Google Scholar 
30.Andow, D. A. & Alstad, D. N. Credibility interval for rare resistance allele frequencies. J. Econ. Entomol. 92, 755–758 (1999).Article 

Google Scholar 
31.R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2020). https://www.R-project.org/.32.Herzog, D. C. Sampling soybean looper on soybean. In Sampling Methods in Soybean Entomology (eds. Koogan, M. & Herzog, D. C.) 141–168 (Springer, 1980).33.Navarrro, F. R., Saini, E. D. & Leiva, P. D. Clave pictórica de polillas de interés agrícola. INTA, EEA PERGAMINO, Pergamino, Buenos Aires, Argentina (2009).34.Gilligan, T. M. & Passoa, S. C. LepIntercept–An identification resource for intercepted Lepidoptera larvae. (Identification Technology Program (ITP), 2014). http://idtools.org/id/leps/lepintercept/key.html (2014).35.Chen, D. et al. Bacillus thuringiensis chimeric proteins Cry1A. 2 and Cry1B. 2 to control soybean lepidopteran pests: New domain combinations enhance insecticidal spectrum of activity and novel receptor contributions. PLoS ONE 16, e0249150 (2021).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
36.SAS Institute Inc., SAS/STAT: 9.1. Statistical Analysis System: getting started with the SAS learning. SAS Institute, Cary, NC (2002).37.Farias, J. R. B., Nepomuceno, A. L., Neumaier, N. Ecofisiologia da soja. Londrina: Embrapa-Centro Nacional de Pesquisa de Soja, Circular Técnica, 48 (2007).38.Sosa-Gómez, D. R. et al. Manual de Identificação de Insetos e Outros Invertebrados da Cultura da Soja. (Embrapa Soja-Documentos (INFOTECA-E), 2014).39.Kaster, M. & Farias, J. R. B. Regionalização dos Testes de Valor de Cultivo e Uso e da indicação de Cultivares de Soja-terceira Aproximação (Embrapa Soja-Documentos (INFOTECA-E), 2012).40.IBGE. Divisão Regional do Brasil em Mesorregiões e Microrregiões Geográficas. v. 1. (IBGE, 1990).41.GraphPad Prism. GraphPad Prism version 8.1.2 for Windows, GraphPad Software, San Diego. www.graphpad.com.42.Huang, F., Parker, R., Leonard, R., Yong, Y. & Liu, J. Frequency of resistance alleles to Bacillus thuringiensis-corn in Texas populations of the sugarcane borer, Diatraea saccharalis (F.) (Lepidoptera: Crambidae). Crop Prot. 28, 174–180 (2009).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
43.Rodrigues-Silva, N. et al. Negative cross-resistance between structurally different Bacillus thuringiensis toxins may favor resistance management of soybean looper in transgenic Bt cultivars. Sci. Rep. 9, 1–9 (2019).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
44.Yano, S. A. C. et al. Tolerância de Anticarsia gemmatalis Hübner, Pseudoplusia includens (Walker) e Rachiplusia nu (Guenée) à proteína Cry1Ac. In: Embrapa Soja-Artigo em anais de congresso (ALICE). (Embrapa, 2012).45.Perini, C. R. et al. Genetic structure of two Plusiinae species suggests recent expansion of Chrysodeixis includens in the American continent. Agric. For. Entomol. 23, 250–260 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
46.Bueno, A. F. et al. Challenges for adoption of integrated pest management (IPM): The soybean example. Neotrop. Entomol. 50, 5–20 (2021).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
47.Carrière, Y. et al. Governing evolution: A socio-ecological comparison of resistance management for insecticidal transgenic Bt crops among four countries. Ambio 49, 1–16 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
48.Heinrichs, E. A. & Silva, R. F. P. Estudo de níveis de população de Anticarsia gemmatalis Hubner, 1818 e Plusia sp. em soja no Rio Grande do Sul. Agron. Sulriograndense 11, 29–35 (1975).
Google Scholar 
49.Guedes, J. V. C. Lagartas da soja: das lições do passado ao manejo do futuro. Rev. Plantio Direto 144, 10–22 (2015).
Google Scholar 
50.Silva, C. S. et al. Population expansion and genomic adaptation to agricultural environments of the soybean looper, Chrysodeixis includens. Evol. Appl. 13, 2071–2085 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
51.Bacalhau, F. B. et al. Performance of genetically modified soybean expressing the Cry1A. 105, Cry2Ab2, and Cry1Ac proteins against key Lepidopteran pests in Brazil. J. Econ. Entomol. 113, 2883–2889 (2020).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar  More

Method and data overviewThe main objective of this study was to assemble a consistent and detailed dataset of annual cropland N budgets in Europe 1961–2019. To this end, we collated a range of different datasets. The FAOSTAT database is the primary data source, providing the longest and most complete data on crop and livestock production with global coverage. However, limiting our scope to the former EU28 allows us to leverage the Eurostat database which in certain respects has more comprehensive coverage. The FAOSTAT and Eurostat databases are both based on national statistics, but have several differences in scope and statistical nomenclature. Therefore, as this paper will demonstrate, the two databases in combination provide a richer picture than either one separately. In addition to these international datasets, we have compiled data from several national statistical databases and yearbooks as well as other literature sources. The main international databases used in this study are listed in Table 1. Remaining data sources are referred to in the text.Table 1 Main international databases used.Full size tableThe focus of this study is cropland, defined as land under arable crops (including temporary grassland) and permanent crops (e.g., fruit orchards). Cropland does not include permanent grasslands, defined by both FAOSTAT and Eurostat as grassland lasting for more than five years22,23. In some cases, however, the results obtained in this work have obvious relevance for permanent grassland as well. For example, our method to estimate synthetic N fertilizer input to cropland also produces an estimate of input to permanent grassland.As explained above, this study covers a territory which today comprises 26 countries. The territory is covered in the period 1961–2019 with the exceptions of Croatia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Slovenia, which all gained independence in 1991/1992 and due to data limitations are covered in the period 1992–2019. We follow the nomenclature and regional divisions of the FAOSTAT database. For the period 1961–1999, the FAOSTAT database reports Belgium-Luxembourg as one unit, but since 2000 it reports Belgium and Luxembourg separately. Data are reported for Czechoslovakia 1961–1992, and separately for Czechia and Slovakia since 1993. For the whole period 1961–2019, data are reported for Germany as one unit, the territory known as Germany since the 1990 reunification. In some cases, the FAOSTAT regional nomenclature differs from other data sources—notably, the Eurostat database covers Belgium and Luxembourg separately since the start in 1955, and only West Germany until 1989—and to reconcile such differences we have collected additional data and calculated area-weighted or quantity-weighted averages as appropriate to the extent possible. To facilitate further analyses, we also provide merged 1961–2019 results for Belgium and Luxembourg and former Czechoslovakia. Throughout the paper, we loosely refer to these geographical areas as “countries”.The remainder of this Method section describes and motivates the data and methods used to estimate the following quantities:

Harvested areas and harvested crop N in 17 categories of arable and permanent crops.

Symbiotic N fixation in pulses and forage legumes on cropland.

Areas of cropland, permanent grassland, and cropland in use.

Synthetic N fertilizer use, partitioned between cropland and permanent grassland.

Manure N flows: excreted N, partitioned into grazing and in-house excretion; losses of N (mainly ammonia) from manure management in animal houses and manure storage facilities; quantities of manure N that finally reach cropland and permanent grassland from grazing animals or through field application.

Atmospheric N deposition to cropland and permanent grassland.

Figure 5 gives a high-level overview of the main data sources, transformation steps, and results.Fig. 5Overview of the main data sources and results of this study. Major input datasets colored blue. Major derived results colored orange.Full size imageTable 2 gives a list of symbols and abbreviations.Table 2 This list covers all non-standard abbreviations and symbols used in more than one subsection of the paper or in the data record.Full size tableThe input data and results described in this paper as well as source code for all the calculations have been archived as a public data record12.Crop areas and harvests: overviewWe combined a range of data sources to estimate crop areas and N harvests in 17 crop categories.For most arable and permanent crops, we used crop harvests and areas from the FAOSTAT database (see Table 1).The only major crops missing from the FAOSTAT database are fodder crops such as temporary grassland, forage legumes, cereal crops harvested green, and fodder roots and cabbages24. For these fodder crops, we instead used data from Eurostat’s Annual Crop Statistics (ACS) (see Table 1) and a range of other sources discussed in detail below. The few data on green fodder crops reported in FAOSTAT’s database (only green maize) were excluded to avoid any double-counting.These data were processed in several steps to identify and address data quality issues. The main steps of this process are illustrated in Fig. 6, and a detailed description is given in the following sections. The final result of the process is a dataset of areas and N harvests in 17 crop categories (Table 3), covering the entire time period defined for each of country. The resulting dataset is found in the data record12.Fig. 6Illustration of main data sources and transformation steps used to estimate areas and N harvests in 17 crop categories. Major input datasets colored blue. Major derived results colored orange. Intermediate transformation steps in gray.Full size imageTable 3 The crop categories resulting from the crop data processing.Full size tableRationale for crop categorizationThe crop categories listed in Table 3 were chosen to produce a dataset that gives comprehensible and agronomically relevant information about major trends in crop mix and productivity. Specifically, the categorization was made based on the following considerations:

The categories should contain crops with similar N yields and similar N yield changes over time. For example, wheat and grain maize have had a substantially steeper yield increase than other cereals over time and are therefore reported separately.

The categories should be well-known categories of crops to simplify interpretation and comparison with other datasets. For example, although sugar beets and potatoes are comparable to cereals in terms of N yields and could possibly be grouped according to the previous criterion, we separated them since they are typically separated in agricultural statistics and models.

The categories should make visible the characteristic differences in crop mix between countries. For example, we separated olives and grapes from other permanent crops since these two crops cover 20–30% of the cropland in four Mediterranean countries, compared to about 9% of the total European cropland.

The number of categories should not be too large because with very small categories the signal-to-noise ratio declines, making any statistical analysis more difficult.

Crop areas and harvests except fodder cropsFrom the FAOSTAT crop database, we extracted data on 121 arable and permanent crops. We converted the reported harvests to N quantities assuming crop N contents from Lassaletta et al.17. The same crop N contents are assumed for all countries in the whole period 1961–2019, even if it is likely that crop N contents have varied both geographically and over time, for several reasons. For example, N contents will tend to increase with dry weather and low yields; N contents will tend to increase with fertilizer rates; and N contents may be may be changed both up and down because of crop breeding. However, a more detailed analysis of these effects has not been possible in the scope of this study.As described above, we then aggregated these crops to 12 categories listed in Table 3.While the FAOSTAT database has a good level of coverage for most major crops (apart from fodder), there are sometimes data gaps where harvested quantities are reported without corresponding areas. This occurs mainly before 1985 in permanent crops (including olives) and to a lesser extent in the categories “Oilseeds” and “Vegetables and other”. For these crops, summing the individual crop areas in a country-year would sometimes result in considerable underestimation of the total harvested area. Similarly, summing areas and harvests separately for available crops would result in incompatible estimates of category areas and harvests.In order to ensure consistent estimates of category areas and harvests, we therefore took the following approach.For each crop category, we calculated the sums of available crop areas (Asum) and crop N harvests (Hsum). In addition, based on the crops where both areas and harvests were available, we calculated category-level weighted average N yields (Yest). Since some area data were missing for individual crops, we additionally calculated an estimate of total category area Aest = Hsum/Yest. When crop harvests are available but some crop areas are missing, the estimate Aest is equivalent to assuming that the weighted average N yield of crops with missing areas is equal to the weighted average yield of the other crops in the same category.For each country and category, we then generated and inspected figures showing the time series of the category-level variables Asum, Aest, Hsum, and Yest along with available crop-level data on area, harvests, and yields. If all crop categories had been present in all countries, there would have been 28 × 12 = 336 figures. However, some country × category combinations are absent (e.g., olive trees in Sweden) and in total there were 304 figures to inspect (available in the data record12).Based on visual inspection of these figures, and in some cases cross-checking against other sources, we then chose on a case-by-case basis how to estimate the category area and harvest from available data. Note that we used available crop-level data to fill category-level data gaps. Filling all the data gaps on crop level have been very laborious and also unnecessary, since the aim was merely to make complete and consistent estimates on crop category level.By default we used Hsum as estimate of the category harvest and Aest as estimate of the category area. We used these default estimates when they looked fairly smooth over time and no obvious and serious data gaps were present in the crop-level data.However, sometimes there were data gaps in the crop-level data that motivated other adjustments on the category level. For example, one type of problem is when a category-level variable is completely missing. The most important example is that for olives in Greece, Portugal, and Spain, harvest data are available since 1961 but area data only since the 1980s. For olives in these three countries, we collected data based on national statistics12,25,26,27,28. In addition, we filled a small number of minor data gaps (e.g., harvests or areas completely missing during one or a few years) using constant extrapolation. A similar type of problem is when some crops within a category lack area and/or harvest data during a part of the period. This can create a false impression that the category’s N yield has suddenly changed abruptly. In a few such cases it appeared more plausible to extrapolate (or sometimes interpolate) areas or yields to obtain a dataset covering the whole period. Generally, these various adjustments made to the default estimates Hsum and Aest were rather small. The missing olive areas in Greece, Portugal, and Spain were by far the most important adjustments made in this process. In each country, there was less than one percent difference between the default estimate Hsum and the final adjusted estimate of total N harvests. Prior to 1985, these adjustments increased the total crop area by about 1.5% on average across all countries.Finally, we also explicitly assigned zero harvests and areas where data were completely missing, to obtain a full dataset of the 12 FAOSTAT crop categories in each country.Fodder crop areas and harvests: overviewAs mentioned above, the FAOSTAT crop production database excludes most fodder crops. Here, we instead assembled a fodder crop dataset using Eurostat crop statistics (see Table 1) and other sources.Eurostat reports areas and harvests of arable and permanent crops in a hierarchy of crop codes23,29. The most important category of fodder crops in this hierarchy is “Plants harvested green from arable land” (crop code G0000), which is further subdivided in a number of subcrops as shown in Table 4. In addition, we included the Eurostat category “Other root crops n.e.c.” (R9000) which mainly accounts for fodder roots, for example Beta vulgaris (known by many names, including fodder or forage beet, or mangold, mangelwurzel, etc.) and several Brassica species (rutabaga/swede, turnip, etc.)23. Crop code R9000 does not include roots for seed or human consumption. Other crops used completely or partly for animal feed, including grain legumes, cereals harvested for grain, sugar beets, potatoes, etc., are accounted for in the FAOSTAT database30. To our knowledge, the crop codes G0000 and R9000 together account for all the major European fodder crops not included in the FAOSTAT database.Table 4 Excerpt from Eurostat’s hierarchy of crop codes23.Full size tableIn the following sections we describe in detail how we combined data from Eurostat with other sources corresponding to the Eurostat crop codes G1000, G2100, G2900, G3000, G9000, and R9000. The results are available in the data record12.Fodder crop areasData extraction from the Eurostat ACS databaseHarvested areas are reported in Eurostat’s ACS database23. Data coverage in the Eurostat ACS data varies widely. For some countries, especially the early members of EEC and EU, the area data are complete back to the 1950s. For the more recent EU member states, the data coverage typically starts around the time of their accession application to the EU. For Croatia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Slovenia, which in this study are covered starting in 1992, the data coverage is fairly complete. However, for the former communist states of Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Hungary, Poland, and Romania, which in this study are covered starting in 1961, there are no data prior to 1987 in the Eurostat database. Eurostat also lacks data during some periods for several countries in western Europe. In a few cases we cross-checked suspected errors and gap-filled area data from the Eurostat Farm Structure Survey (FSS)29 (see Table 1). However, the FSS data generally have smaller coverage than the ACS and are not entirely comparable in scope and methods, so we used it very sparingly.Some special treatment was needed for crops G9000 and R9000. Crop code G9000 is not reported in the Eurostat ACS, but we summed it from available data of G9100 and G9900. The reason to merge these two crop codes is that their reported areas often fluctuate in such a way to suggest that the same crops have been reported variably as G9100 or G9900; thus, data gaps for the combined G9000 area are fewer and easier to fill than for the individual G9100 and G9900 areas. For R9000 (fodder roots), data were almost never explicitly stated, but could in many cases be calculated as R0000–R1000–R200023.Gap-filling and other adjustments to the Eurostat fodder crop areasIn most countries, the Eurostat data on fodder areas are fairly smooth, complete, and internally consistent since around year 2000. Before this period, several countries have data gaps and/or report large, sudden changes which we intepreted as potential errors. A reason to expect some errors and inconsistencies is that the nomenclature used in older national statistics likely is incompatible with the current Eurostat crop nomenclature, which may cause problems in the translation of old data to the Eurostat database. However, since considerable shifts in fodder crop areas actually have occurred since 1961 in most European countries, it is not always straightforward to determine whether abrupt changes in reported areas are reporting errors or accurate representations of historical developments. We therefore scrutinized and cross-checked the Eurostat data against other sources, filling data gaps and making other adjustments to reconcile major discrepancies. The collected dataset on fodder crop areas, as well as figures showing the stepwise gap-filling of fodder crop areas, are available in the data record12.Fodder roots were important crops in the first half of the 20th century in several European countries, but areas then declined as they were replaced by other, less labor-intensive fodder crops31. Therefore we paid special attention to filling data gaps in R9000 areas during the 1960s–1970s.Before listing the data sources and adjustments country by country, we specifically mention the common approach used to fill the long 1961–1986 data gaps in Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Hungary, Poland, and Romania. We mainly used data from reports of the Economic Research Service of the US Department of Agriculture (USDA ERS), which during the 1960s–1980s collated information from the statistical yearbooks of the socialist states in a series of reports32,33,34,35,36. These reports cover the years 1960 and 1965–1987, and give areas for three categories of fodder crops: “feed roots”, “corn silage”, and “hay”. We assigned the former two crop codes R9000 and G3000, which in the overlapping year 1987 agreed perfectly with the Eurostat ACS. The last category, “hay”, is more complicated: it may refer to a mix of annual and perennial crops harvested green, predominantly forage legumes in pure stands or mixed with grass, cereals and cereal/legume mixtures, and possibly pure grass cultivation on arable land. The USDA ERS “hay” category clearly excludes harvests from permanent grassland. Since there is usually one year of data overlap between the USDA ERS statistics and the Eurostat ACS in 1987 for these countries, we could usually conclude that the “hay” area then corresponded to combination of crop codes G2100, G2900, and sometimes G9000. Country by country, we decided on a combination of Eurostat crop codes to match against the “hay” area, and then divided the 1960–1986 “hay” area between them in proportion to their their 1987 areas. Temporary grasslands (G1000) account only for a few percent of the fodder crops in most of Eastern Europe, and we therefore mostly extrapolated the earliest available G1000 areas back to 1961. Country-specific details are elaborated below.The remainder of this section lists the data sources and adjustments country by country. For brevity, we omit some descriptions of the following minor adjustments: interpolation of minor data gaps, sometimes using data from 1960 or 2020; extrapolation of minor fodder crops accounting for a small share of the total fodder area; removal of obvious outliers.Austria. The Eurostat ACS data are complete and consistent since the start in 1980. Data for 1960 and 1970–79 were filled using national statistics and data from the FAO 1960 World Census of Agriculture37,38,39. Remaining data gaps interpolated and extrapolated.Belgium and Luxembourg. The Eurostat ACS data are almost perfectly complete and consistent since the start in 1955. Minor data gaps in G2100 and G2900 areas interpolated.Bulgaria. The Eurostat ACS data are almost complete and consistent since the start in 1987. In 1960–1986, we used G3000 and R9000 areas from USDA ERS publications34,35,36 as explained above. In 1987, Eurostat’s combined area of G2100 and G2900 matches the USDA ERS “hay” area, so we divided the 1960–1986 hay area between these crop codes in proportion to their 1987 shares, and extrapolated G9000 and G1000 values constant to 1961.Croatia. The Eurostat ACS data are complete from the start in 2000. We extrapolated the areas back to 1992.Czechia. The Eurostat ACS data are complete from the start in 1987 apart from G1000 which is reported at around 10% of the fodder area since 2011. A lone G1000 value in 1999 is conspicously close to the temporary 1995–1999 decrease in G2900, suggesting a temporary classification change in temporary grassland and legume-dominated crops. Since G1000 data are largely missing, we chose to discard the 1995–1999 decrease in G2900 area and interpolate surrounding values while extrapolating the 2011 G1000 area constant back in time to 1987.Slovakia. The Eurostat ACS data are complete and consistent from the start in 1987 except a minor gap in G2100 and G2900 areas which we interpolated.Czechoslovakia. Areas for 1987–1992 were taken as the sum of the adjusted Eurostat ACS data for Czechia and Slovakia. In 1987, Eurostat’s combined area of G2100, G2900, and G9000 matches the USDA ERS “hay” area, so we divided the 1960–1986 hay area between these crop codes in proportion to their 1987 shares. G1000 was extrapolated constant to 1961.Denmark. The Eurostat ACS data are fairly complete and consistent back to 1955, except for the G9000 area which fluctuates considerably. A closer inspection shows that 1973–2009, G9900 has a large area share while G9100 is not reported; and from 2010 the G9900 area is zero while G9100 has a smaller share. Before 1973, the Eurostat database does not report G9100 or G9900 areas. National statistics show that this apparent discontinuity arises because the reported G9900 area for some years, in addition to cereals harvested green, also includes aftermath, i.e. late season harvests or grazing after other crops. The aftermath at its peak in year 2000 accounted for about half the reported fodder area on arable land but less than 10% of the harvested feed value40,41. Considering the incomplete data coverage and the minor importance of the aftermath in terms of harvested quantities, we replaced the Eurostat G9000 area by a complete record of cereals harvested green (i.e., corresponding to G9100) based on national statistics42,43. The national statistics prior to 1982 report the combined area corresponding to G3000 + G9100, so to avoid double counting we subtracted the G3000 area as reported by Eurostat.Estonia. The Eurostat ACS data are mostly complete from 1991. A data gap in the G1000 area was filled by difference since the G2000 data clearly includes the later G1000 area until 2003. We also filled minor data gaps in G2100 and G2900 using national statistics44.Finland. The Eurostat ACS data are complete since 1998. We used national statistics45 to fill the G1000 area, which in 1998 covered more than 95% of the fodder area. Fodder roots made a minor contribution in Finland even in the 1950s and 1960s46 when they were much more common in other countries. The main feed root seemingly was potatoes46,47, which is already accounted for in the FAOSTAT crop database30. Considering the lack of further data and the dominance of G1000 in the fodder production we extrapolated the 1998 area of other fodder crops back to 1961.France. The Eurostat ACS data are complete since 1961 apart from a few minor data gaps which we interpolated.Germany. The Eurostat ACS data cover all the fodder crops starting in 1955, but geographically covers only West Germany until 1989. To complete the period 1961–1989, we estimated East Germany’s fodder crop areas in 1989 data from Eurostat ACS and USDA ERS34,35,36 data as follows. We estimated East Germany’s fodder crop areas in 1989 as the Eurostat increment in fodder crop areas 1989–1990, an estimate which builds on the assumption that both West and East German fodder crop areas were approximately constant 1989–1990. East Germany’s 1960–1987 areas of G3000 and R9000 were then taken from the USDA ERS data. The estimated 1989 area of G1000, G2100, G2900, and G9000 matched the USDA ERS 1987 “hay” area, so we divided the 1960–1987 hay area between these crop codes in proportion to their 1989 shares. The remaining minor data gaps were interpolated.Greece. While the Eurostat ACS data appear complete and internally consistent since year 2000, they are difficult to reconcile with older Eurostat data and data from other sources. For the period 1969–1986, the Eurostat ACS data suggest that alfalfa (G2100) is the dominating arable fodder crop varying around 150–200 thousand hectares (kha). Similar alfalfa areas are reported from the 1950s until 2017 in multiple overviews of Greek fodder production as well as recent national statistical publications48,49,50,51,52,53. In the Eurostat database, however, there are almost no fodder crop data reported for 1988–1999, and from year 2000 the alfalfa area is reported around 10–15 kha. For other forage legumes, the Eurostat data consistently report zero area, while several sources report fairly constant areas in the range 35–70 kha48,50,51,52,53. The area data for fodder crops in the Eurostat FSS 1990–201629 are incomplete and offer few additional insights. Based on these considerations, we made the following adjustments to the Eurostat data: discarded the Eurostat area data for G2100 starting in year 2000 and extrapolated the fairly constant areas 1969–1986 to the whole period 1961–2019; assumed a constant G2900 area of 50 kha; interpolated the G9000 area data which appear broadly consistent with various data sources; and extrapolated the average G1000 area from year 2000 back to 1961.Hungary. The Eurostat ACS data on Hungary’s main fodder crops, forage legumes and green maize, are mostly complete from 1987. The USDA ERS data34,35,36 provide areas of G3000 and R9000 back to 1960. The G9000 area is missing 1987–1997. Since the USDA ERS “hay” area exceeds the combined G2100 and G2900 area in 1987, we estimated the G9000 area as the remainder of the hay area in 1987, and then divided the 1960–1986 hay area between G2100, G2900, and G9000 in proportion to their 1987 shares. The resulting G2100 area estimate in 1961–1987 agrees remarkably well with data from the Hungarian Central Statistical Office54. For G1000, the few available data indicate that the area is very small compared to the total fodder area, and we extrapolated the 2003 area constant back to 1961.Ireland. Temporary grassland (G1000) clearly dominates fodder production on cropland. However, a considerable area of temporary grassland has been reclassified to permanent grassland around 1996–2016 although sources disagree on the exact size and timing of this shift. The Eurostat ACS data reports a drop from about 0.7 Mha to 0.1 Mha between 1996 and 2000, and a corresponding increase in permanent grassland (crop code J0000) between 2001 and 2002. The Eurostat FSS reports a similar drop in G1000 area between 2013 and 2016. The FAOSTAT database reports a simultaneous change in both temporary and permanent grassland between 2006 and 2008. For consistency with the FAOSTAT permanent grassland area (details below) we used FAOSTAT’s temporary grassland area data during 2000–2006, the only period where it disagrees with the Eurostat ACS. For the remaining fodder crops, area data are almost complete from the start in 1955.Italy. The Eurostat ACS data are mostly complete for G2100, G2900, G3000, and R9000 since 1970. We filled a 1989–2013 data gap in G2900 by interpolation. For G1000 and G9000, the Eurostat annual crop statistics are incomplete and somewhat erratic. In the years where data for both G1000 and G9000 are available, their sum shows a smooth decline from around 1.2 Mha in the 1980s to about 0.8 Mha in 2014, suggesting that crop classifications may have changed more than actual areas. National statistics from 2006–201855 support this interpretation, although the national statistics cannot easily be matched to the Eurostat crop codes. A detailed expert overview from 197756 agrees well with the G1000 and G9000 data for the 1970s. Considering all this, we filled the G1000 and G9000 data gaps by interpolating their area sum between 1986 and 2014 and dividing the resulting total in proportion to their 1986 areas. Remaining data gaps were filled by extrapolation from the 1970s back to 1961.Latvia. The Eurostat ACS data are mostly complete for G3000, G9000, and R9000 since 1987. Areas of G1000 are reported since year 2000, completely dominating the fodder area. In 1987–1999, reported areas for G2000 appear to include what is later reported as G1000, suggesting a change in crop classifications. We extrapolated the small areas of G2100 and G2900 reported since 2015 constant back to 1992 and assigned the remainder of the 1992–1999 G2000 area to G1000.Lithuania. Like in Latvia, the Eurostat ACS data reports no G1000 area prior to 2000, but a G2000 area which likely includes the later G1000 area. We extrapolated the 2001 areas of G2100 and G2900 back to 1992 and assigned the remainder of the 1992–1999 G2000 area to G1000. This leads to an estimated 95% decrease in the G1000 area between 1999 and 2001, which agrees with an increase in Lithuania’s permanent grassland area registered in the Eurostat and FAOSTAT databases since 2001. Most likely this accurately reflects a heavy decrease in the resowing of grasslands in Lithuania which occured after the collapse of the Soviet Union57. We extrapolated the G1000 area from 1999 to 2000 to agree with the timing of this change in the reported permanent grassland areas.Netherlands. The Eurostat ACS data are complete since 1955 except for minor gaps which we interpolated. The data show an abrupt increase in temporary grassland (G1000) area from less than 40 kha in the mid-1990s to about 200 kha in the mid-2000s, a change which is also reflected in decreased permanent grassland areas in the Eurostat and FAOSTAT databases.Poland. The Eurostat ACS data are mostly complete since the start in 1987, but only partly consistent with other data sources. The USDA ERS data for 1960–198734,35,36 precisely match the G3000 and R9000 areas in 1987 and we therefore used these without modification. However, the USDA ERS “hay” area in 1987 is considerably smaller than the combined Eurostat G2100 and G2900 areas, which suggests a reporting error in at least one of the datasets. Several factors strongly suggest that the Eurostat G2100 and G2900 areas are both incorrect in 1987–2001. First, Eurostat’s reported G2900 area falls by more than 1.5 Mha in 1987–1998, a change rate which appears unlikely even given the rapid changes taking place in Poland starting in the late 1980s. Second, national statistics from Polish statistical yearbooks58,59,60,61 report that the area of fodder legumes has never been as high as 1.5 Mha in Poland, and specifically suggest a mistake in crop code assignments since Eurostat’s G2100 areas from 1987 to 2001 exactly equal the total areas of perennial legumes according to national statistics. Third, area data from the Eurostat FSS in 2003 also suggest that Eurostat ACS data for G2100 and G2900 are incorrect until year 2001. Based on this, we discarded the Eurostat ACS areas of G2100, G2900, and G9000 in 1987–2001.The USDA ERS “hay” area varies between 1.4 and 1.8 Mha in 1960–1987. The Polish statistical yearbooks do not give sufficient information to divide this between crop codes G1000, G2100, G2900, and G9000. However, data from the FAO 1960 World Census of Agriculture39 shows that clover was the main forage legume (around 0.6 Mha). Alfalfa covered about 0.13 Mha, about 13% of the pure forage legume area. Throughout the 1960s–1980s, the statistical yearbooks show that perennial legumes covered about half the hay area58,59. Similarly, an expert summary of national statistics in 1965 loosely described the fodder area except maize and fodder roots as consisting of 48% pure forage legumes and 52% of clover/grass and pure grass62. In line with this, Eurostat’s G1000 area for 1987 corresponds to 29% of the 1987 hay area. Based on these data, we divided the USDA ERS hay area in 1960–1987 using the following fixed proportions: 29% G1000, 6% G2100, 42% G2900, and the remaining 23% G9000. We interpolated the remaining data gaps.Portugal. The Eurostat ACS data are incomplete. The total G0000 area is reported roughly constant since 1978. An almost constant share of around 9% G1000 and 18% G3000 is reported since 1991. The major area appears to be G9000, but its area is only reported since 2011. Quantitative data from other sources appear to be scarce63. A paper64 from 1990 describes cereal/legume mixtures (i.e., G9000) as the main arable fodder, which agrees with recent Eurostat data. Considering the near-constant G0000 area since 1978 and the near-constant shares of different fodder crops, and that few additional data could be found, we extrapolated available data constant back to 1961.Romania. The Eurostat ACS data are complete and consistent since the start in 1987. Areas of G3000 and R9000 1960–1987 were filled from USDA ERS publications34,35,36 as explained above. In 1987, Eurostat’s combined area of G2100, G2900, and G9000 precisely matches the USDA ERS “hay” area, so we divided the 1960–1986 hay area between these crop codes in proportion to their 1987 shares, and extrapolated the very small G1000 area constant from 2005 back to 1961.Slovenia. The Eurostat ACS data are almost complete from the start in 1991. Some minor data gaps were filled using national statistics65.Spain. The Eurostat ACS data are almost complete since 1965. We extrapolated the 1965–66 areas back to 1961.Sweden. The Eurostat ACS data are fairly complete from the start in 1992. We filled the data gaps back to 1961 using national statistics66.United Kingdom. The Eurostat ACS data are almost complete since the start in 1955. The main exception is fodder roots (R9000), for which Eurostat data are available since 2000. We completed the record using data from national surveys67,68,69 covering all major fodder roots: turnips, swedes, and fodder beets (including mangolds, which are distinct from fodder beets in British terminology31). For G9000, a minor issue is that the 2010–2011 areas are reported identical to G3000 areas, likely by mistake. We discarded these data and filled by interpolation. We also extrapolated G9000 constant from 1970 back to 1961.Fodder crop harvestsWe used Eurostat ACS data to estimate fodder crop N harvests. The ACS production data have two important limitations: (1) they are incomplete, even more so than the area data, and (2) they have several inconsistencies related to the water content of the harvest (details below). For these reasons, it was not possible to establish time series of fodder crop yields for more than a few crop/country combinations. In the few cases where long-term time series are available, they however show that fodder crop yields on average have increased relatively slowly.Considering the lack of data, and that the period 2000–2019 has the best data coverage, we decided to estimate country/crop specific yields in 2010 from available data. Between 1961 and 2019, we assumed based on long-term statistics from Austria, France, Hungary, Italy, Poland, and Sweden28,37,56,58,59,70,71,72,73,74 a linear increase such that the 1961 yields are 75% of the 2010 yields. The following subsections describe the estimation of 2010 yields from available data.Estimating the dry matter yields of fodder cropsThe nominal water content of the harvest data is a central concern since harvests may be reported with different nominal water content. Some countries report in dry matter (0% water), while others use crop-specific nominal water content typically between 12% (hay) and 65–80% (e.g., green maize and other silage crops).The Eurostat ACS data since year 2000 accounts for these differences by reporting the water content (“humidity” in Eurostat’s nomenclature) along with the harvested quantities28. There are two different datasets, one in national humidity (0–88% water content) and one in EU standard humidity (always 65% water content for plants harvested green)28. The coverage of humidity values (since year 2000) is not complete, which means that sometimes the harvest is only given in national humidity basis. Prior to year 2000, all the data are given in national humidity basis, without corresponding humidity values.To construct a harmonized dataset of dry matter yields for each country/crop combination, we studied and compared four time series of available yield values: (1) in national humidity, (2) in EU standard humidity, (3) in dry matter based on the national humidity dataset, and (4) in dry matter based on standard EU humidity dataset. For crop code G9000, we calculated production-weighted average yields from data on crop codes G9100 and G9900. Based on a close inspection of these data and sometimes cross-checking against national data sources, we identified the following types of possible reporting errors:

Some crop yields are reported equal in national and EU humidity, although the corresponding humidity values differ. This creates two different dry matter yields, at most one of which could be accurate. This possibly reflects a mistake in the conversion between national and EU humidity. In these cases we typically used the national data.

Sometimes, the reported yield of a crop changes drastically from one year to the next such that the older yield in national or EU humidity roughly equals the new yield in dry matter, or vice versa. In these cases, one of the two yield levels could typically be ruled out as implausible.

Some calculated dry matter yields seem implausibly low. In some of these cases it could be deduced that a yield reported with a nominal water content of 65% was actually in dry matter or hay basis (i.e., about 85% dry matter).

Some yield values seem implausibly high or low compared to neighboring years or similar countries without any apparent reason.

Based on these considerations, we selected a subset of yield values for each country/crop, which we then averaged to an estimate of the 2010 (reference year) yield. We aimed to use 2000–2019 data if possible, not only because they best represent the 2010 yields but also because the more recent data are more complete and consistent. We used data from the 1990s in a few cases where no 2000–2019 were available. We used dry matter yields with only a few exceptions: for the crops G1000, G2100, and G2900, we sometimes used yields in national humidity basis if these appeared to be reported as hay or dry matter, assuming a dry matter content of 85%; and for fodder roots (R9000), humidity values are not reported and we uniformly assumed a dry matter content of 16%75. Figures illustrating data selection are available in the data record12.Accounting for grazing on croplandWe considered the complication that cropland, especially temporary grasslands (G1000), to some extent is grazed in addition to the mechanical harvest. The harvest statistics for temporary grassland appear to account only for mowing which means that they underestimate the total crop production. Mixed mowing and grazing appears to occur in temporary grasslands throughout Europe76,77, but quantitatively it is probably most important in the Nordic countries where temporary grassland occupies a considerable share of the cropland and is grazed fairly commonly.In fact, grazing may also occur in several of the fodder crops as well as in other crops, between or after harvests. However, we consider temporary grasslands as the probable main source of grazing intake on cropland, and considering the lack of data on this topic we make an estimate of grazing intake on cropland accounting only for temporary grassland.Relevant data to accurately estimate the grazing component of temporary grassland production are very scarce, but a recent investigation of Swedish data shows that grazing contributes about 20% in addition to the mechanical harvest of temporary grassland78. At least in Finland and Sweden, similar proportions of temporary grassland are used exclusively for grazing45,79. Considering that no further information could be found, we inflated the G1000 yield estimates by 20% in all the countries.Filling of remaining data gaps in fodder crop yieldsA few remaining data gaps were filled by extrapolating crop yields from neighboring countries with similar climate and agricultural productivity. In some cases we averaged yield values from multiple neighboring countries. The following data were extrapolated from other countries:

Belgium (G9000): average of Luxembourg and the Netherlands

Czechoslovakia (all fodder crops): average of Czechia and Slovakia

Germany (G9000): from France

Greece (all fodder crops): from Bulgaria

Ireland (G1000, G2900, G9000): averages of Belgium, France, Germany, and the Netherlands

Italy (G2100, G9000): average of France and Austria

Latvia: (G2100, G2900): from Lithuania

Luxembourg (R9000): average of France and the Netherlands

Portugal (G1000, G9000, R9000): from Spain

Sweden (R9000): average of Latvia and Lithuania

United Kingdom (G1000, G2100, G9000, R9000): averages of Belgium, France, Germany, and the Netherlands

Estimation of fodder crop harvestsWe finally averaged the selected yield values for each country/crop, thus producing the estimates of 2010 dry matter yields. From these, we estimated N yields assuming N contents listed in Table 4.Finally, we calculated the N harvest for each of the fodder crops in each country by multiplying the estimated yield time series by the gap-filled area time series.Aggregation of fodder areas and harvests to categoriesThe six Eurostat fodder crops (Table 4) were ultimately aggregated to five categories following the considerations described above. Specifically, we aggregated alfalfa (G2100) and other forage legumes (G2900) into one category.Cropland and grassland areasSeveral of the results calculated in later sections depend on the total cropland area as well as on the areas of permanent and temporary grassland. This section explains how we estimated these areas from available data sources.As an estimate of cropland area in use, Lassaletta et al.17 used the sum of harvested crop areas, except when this sum exceeded the total cropland area reported in the FAOSTAT database, in which case the FAOSTAT cropland area was used instead. The sum of harvested crop areas can exceed the FAOSTAT cropland area due to multicropping or intercropping. We followed the same approach as Lassaletta et al., with the only difference that we used the sum of adjusted crop categories (henceforth called the crop area sum) rather than the sum of individual FAOSTAT crops. Some examples of the crop area sum compared to the FAOSTAT cropland are shown in Fig. 2.Permanent grassland areas, following Lassaletta et al.17, were taken from the FAOSTAT database (“Land under perm. meadows and pastures” in the land use dataset). These areas were used in estimates of the allocation of synthetic and manure N inputs to cropland (details below).The FAOSTAT land use data at the time of our study was only available until 2018. We considered two options for filling the data gap in 2019. Eurostat data on permanent grassland and cropland could be used, or the FAOSTAT data for 2018 could be extrapolated constant to 2019. In general, the two methods would produce very similar results. However, since the FAOSTAT and Eurostat data series on permanent grasslands in a few countries differ substantially, we chose to extrapolate the FAOSTAT land use data constant from 2018 to 2019 as it probably gives the most internally consistent results.Temporary grassland areas were taken equal to the gap-filled crop category Temporary grassland (see Table 3).Assessing the accuracy of the estimates of cropland in useOur approach may lead to an overestimate or an underestimate of actual cropland area in use. The crop area sum may overestimate the cropland in use if some areas are counted more than once due to multicropping or intercropping. This is the reason to set the FAOSTAT cropland area as an upper limit to cropland in use. The reported cropland area may also overestimate the cropland in use since it may include considerable areas of fallow land.In principle, a more direct estimate of cropland in use would be the reported cropland area minus fallow land, but this is not an option since available data on fallow land areas in the FAOSTAT and Eurostat databases are much too incomplete to cover the whole 1961–2019 period.Instead, to test the accuracy of our estimates, we compared the crop area sum to cropland minus fallow land using data from the Eurostat database which has the most complete records of fallow land. The most common result of this test is that the areas match within a few percent (less than ± 5% difference in 75% of 971 country-years with data on fallow area). See figures in the data record12 for details.We also compared the crop area sum to the FAOSTAT cropland area. The crop area sum exceeds the FAOSTAT cropland by at least 1% in 163 country-years, about 12% of all 1308 country-years. The only major exceedances, e.g., more than 10% exceedance for at least 3 years, are in the 1960s and 1970s in Italy, Portugal, and Romania. See figures in the data record12 for details. At least in Romania most of the difference is explained by inter- and multicropping of cereals with beans and squash or pumpkins which was a common but gradually decreasing practice during the 1960s and 1970s80,81. In general, however, we have not been able to systematically determine the extent of inter- and multicropping.In summary, these results show that the crop area sum is usually a good approximation of cropland in use in Europe, especially after the 1970s.Symbiotic N fixationWe estimated symbiotic N fixation in pulses and forage legumes using the same method as Lassaletta et al.17, i.e., assuming a linear relationship between the fixed N and the harvested N yield Y,$${rm{BNF}}=Ycdot {rm{Ndfa}}cdot frac{{rm{BGN}}}{{rm{NHI}}},$$
(1)
where Ndfa is the share of plant N derived from the atmosphere, BGN is the ratio between total and above-ground plant N, and NHI is the N harvest index, i.e., the ratio between harvested and total above-ground plant N. We used the same crop-specific parameter values as Lassaletta et al.17,82.For crop code G1000 (temporary grassland, including grass/clover mixtures) we assumed that 25% of the dry matter harvest was forage legumes;5,17 for G2900 (pure forage legumes, sometimes mixed with grass) 90% forage legumes; and for G9000 (a variety of crops, including cereal/legume mixtures) 25% forage legumes (see also Table 5, and Eurostat’s ACS handbook23).Table 5 N contents assumed for the fodder crops.Full size tableThe resulting parameter values are available in the data record12.Atmospheric N depositionLassaletta et al.17 developed country-specific time series of N deposition rates in 1961–2013. We used these, extrapolated constant in the period 2014–2019, to estimate atmospheric N deposition input to cropland by multiplying by the estimated cropland area in use.Synthetic N fertilizer consumptionTime series of agricultural synthetic N fertilizer consumption in European countries are available in several international databases:

FAOSTAT has a dataset representing agricultural use of fertilizers, based primarily on data reported by countries. FAOSTAT fills data gaps using various imputation methods, e.g., based on trade and production data83.

Eurostat has a dataset representing agricultural use of fertilizers, based on data reported by countries84.

Eurostat additionally publishes a dataset representing total national fertilizer sales, using data from Fertilizers Europe85.

The International Fertilizer Association (IFA) publishes a dataset representing national consumption. It is based on sales data from the fertilizer industry, and gap-filled using production and trade data and N budgeting86.

In principle, national sales of fertilizers is not equal to agricultural use because (1) stock changes between years can shift agricultural use compared to sales, and (2) sales also cover non-agricultural uses such as parks and lawns. However, due to lack of data, the international datasets of agricultural use do not systematically account for stock changes and non-agricultural use83,84.There is no immediately apparent way to judge which of these four datasets best represents the actual history of agricultural use. We therefore inspected and compared the four datasets to assess (1) to what extent they cover the studied time period, (2) whether the data seem consistent and plausible, and (3) how well the datasets agree with each other. The four datasets sometimes disagree considerably. By far, the longest and most complete datasets are provided by FAOSTAT and IFA. While these two datasets are mostly smooth and consistent, in a few exceptional cases they exhibit implausible jumps in consumption (e.g., by 50% or more) from one year to another. The FAOSTAT database has somewhat more such episodes, and moreover disagrees with the other three datasets more often than the others. While agreement between several datasets is no guarantee for their correctness, it seems likely that the majority vote of these partly independent estimates is the best estimate. The IFA dataset generally agrees well with the Fertilizers Europe dataset. The Fertilizers Europe dataset arguably exhibits the fewest implausible jumps but covers a shorter time period.Based on these results, we chose to use the Fertilizers Europe dataset85 where possible, and in second place the IFA dataset86. These datasets together (1) have almost complete coverage of the country-years in this study, (2) mostly appear consistent and plausible, and (3) usually agree well with a majority vote of the four datasets. We used FAOSTAT data for Finland 1961–1984 and Slovenia 1992–2006 because the IFA data appeared implausible. In addition, a small number of data gaps were filled using FAOSTAT data (Croatia 1992–1993, Czechia and Slovakia 1993) and Eurostat country consumption data (Belgium and Luxembourg 2000–2019).Figures showing the comparison of the four datasets and the selected data are available in the data record12.Share of synthetic N fertilizer to croplandFollowing Lassaletta et al.17 we calculated the synthetic N fertilizer input to cropland by multiplying the total consumption by country-specific time series of the shares applied to cropland. Although data on these shares are scarce, it is well known that several European countries have long histories of large synthetic N inputs to permanent grassland. In this paper, we present a revised estimate of these shares, following same approach as Lassaletta et al., but adding a significant amount of additional data for several countries. To make sense of the incomplete and sometimes contradictory data we used several techniques to interpret and gap-fill the data on a country-by-country basis. Figure 7 gives an overview of the steps taken. In the following subsections we first describe the overall process in more detail and then provide country-specific details.Fig. 7Illustration of main data sources and transformation steps used to estimate the application of synthetic fertilizer on cropland and permanent grassland. Major input datasets colored blue. Major derived results colored orange. Intermediate transformation steps in gray.Full size imageIdeally, the inputs of synthetic N fertilizer would be further disaggregated, e.g., to the 17 crop categories for which areas and harvests are reported in this study (Table 3). However, there are no datasets that enable comprehensive and reliable estimates of synthetic N fertilizer inputs on the level of individual crops or crop categories for the time period and countries covered in this study. As will be detailed below, pan-European crop-and-country-specific data on fertilizer inputs are available only for a few years between the 1990s and today. Further research on this topic would be valuable, and could use, for example, a combination of mass balances, statistical surveys, expert estimates, and crop-specific fertilizer recommendations from throughout the decades in different countries to establish plausible estimates of how synthetic N fertilizers have been allocated between crops. Such an exercise, however, could prove rather labor-intensive and moreover would necessarily imply a level of uncertainty which we have decided is not acceptable in the scope of this study.Figures illustrating the final results are available in the data record12.Data collection and interpretationThree main categories of data were used. First, a few countries (France, Ireland, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom) have carried out repeated national statistical surveys on grassland and cropland fertilization. Although each of these datasets have their idiosyncracies and required additional data processing (see below), we used them where possible since they are the most consistent and complete datasets available. Second, crop-specific fertilizer datasets from the fertilizer industry have been published in collaboration with FAO during the 1990s and early 2000s87,88,89. In addition, a similar unpublished dataset from EFMA90 (now Fertilizers Europe) gives crop-specific fertilizer rates for the crop year 2005/2006. These datasets are extremely valuable since they cover all the countries in this study during at least one year. The crop-specific datasets were later aggregated and further processed as explained in the following paragraphs. Third and last, we collected a range of expert estimates and other data from various literature sources. This last category is the least dependable type of data, and we used it only after exhausting other possibilities. However, given the general and long-running scarcity of data on grassland fertilization91, there are in many cases no alternatives to expert estimates prior to the 1990s. For all these data sources, as far as possible, we followed the references to the original data source and collected the data from there. In each case the citations in this paper point to the publication from which we collected the data.All the data were collected in a table with columns for fertilizer rate R, fertilizer quantity Q, and crop area A12. Sometimes only one or two of these numbers were available. Each row in the table contains data from one publication concerning one country-year-crop combination.We classified each row as belonging to one of the land categories cropland (C), permanent grassland (PG), temporary grassland (TG), non-grass cropland (C–TG), total grassland (PG + TG), or in some cases only the fertilized portion of grasslands (denoted PGf, TGf, or PGf + TGf). The main point of the land categories is that they enable the calculation of the share applied to cropland, QC/(QC + QPG). However, they also helped with the intermediate tasks of interpretation and consistency checking, aggregation, and gap-filling:

Consistency checking and interpretation. A significant complication in using the FAO/EFMA datasets87,88,89,90 is that the crop categorization for some countries includes temporary grassland under the “grassland” item and for other countries under another item, usually “fodder (other)”. Since the final goal was to separate permanent grassland from cropland, it was necessary to work out what each “grassland” item refers to. This issue could usually be resolved since these datasets also report crop areas corresponding to the different fertilizer rates. To assign the appropriate land category to such items, we cross-checked the fertilized areas according to the FAO/EFMA datasets against the areas according to FAOSTAT/Eurostat, and thus could in most cases unambigously determine whether the “grassland” fertilizer rates referred to permanent (PG) or total grassland (PG + TG). We used the FAO/EFMA fertilizer data only when the summed fertilizer quantities and areas matched the previously estimated country-level fertilizer quantities and land category areas.

Aggregation. Several data sources, including national statistical surveys and the FAO/EFMA datasets, report data for individual crops. In these cases, we assigned land category labels (C, PG, C−TG, etc.) to the individual crops that together constitute such a land category. We then calculated, e.g., the average application rate on cropland RC as an area-weighted average of the individual crop rates. Where possible, we assigned labels C and PG since this allows the direct calculation of the final result QC/(QC + QPG). Several datasets, however, only distinguish total grassland (PG + TG) from non-grass cropland (C − TG); in these cases we later estimated permanent grassland rates from total grassland rates (see details below).

Gap-filling. Several data sources only report rates, not areas or quantities. In such cases, when the land category was known, we used the previously collected area data as necessary to calculate quantities, e.g., QC = RCAC. Furthermore, when rates and areas were reported for fertilized grassland (e.g., RPGf and APGf), we calculated the average rate on grassland using grassland areas from FAOSTAT/Eurostat (e.g., RPG = RPGfAPGf/APG).

Estimating the share of synthetic N fertilizer applied to croplandIn principle, the share of synthetic N applied to cropland can be calculated as QC/Qtot using a QC value from one of the above data sources and Qtot from the IFA/FAOSTAT databases. Alternatively, if only QPG is known, the quantity to cropland can be estimated as QC = Qtot − QPG. However, this method is not ideal since it introduces noise and possibly bias stemming from the different methods used to estimate total fertilizer consumption and land category fertilizer use. We therefore designed the following method to estimate the share to permanent grassland, which uses the total IFA/FAOSTAT fertilizer quantities only as a last resort.As a primary option, we used the following estimate. Assuming that all synthetic fertilizer is used on agricultural land (see Section “Synthetic N fertilizer consumption” above), the share applied to cropland can be expressed as$$frac{{Q}_{{rm{C}}}}{{Q}_{{rm{C}}}+{Q}_{{rm{PG}}}}=frac{{R}_{{rm{C}}}{A}_{{rm{C}}}}{{R}_{{rm{C}}}{A}_{{rm{C}}}+{R}_{{rm{PG}}}{A}_{{rm{PG}}}}={left(1+frac{{R}_{{rm{PG}}}}{{R}_{{rm{C}}}}frac{{A}_{{rm{PG}}}}{{A}_{{rm{C}}}}right)}^{-1}.$$
(2)
Note that this expression does not depend on the total fertilizer consumption (e.g., from IFA/FAOSTAT) but only on the area ratio APG/AC and the rate ratio RPG/RC. Whenever possible, we used this expression with area rate data from our own study and rate ratios calculated without mixing data from different publications. In the very few cases where different publications produced different rate ratio estimates for the same country/year, we used the average of the estimates.A variant of this primary option was used in the cases where rates are available only for total grassland (PG + TG) and non-grass cropland (C − TG). To estimate the rate ratio RPG/RC in these cases, additional data or assumptions are necessary. In some cases, we simply assumed that the average rate is equal on permanent and temporary grassland, but in other cases there was clear evidence of higher rates on temporary grassland. If the fertilizer rate on temporary grassland is k times the rate on permanent grassland, RTG = kRPG, then$${R}_{{rm{PG}}+{rm{TG}}}={R}_{{rm{PG}}}frac{{A}_{{rm{PG}}}+k{A}_{{rm{TG}}}}{{A}_{{rm{PG}}+{rm{TG}}}},$$
(3)
and similarly,$${R}_{{rm{C}}}=frac{{R}_{{rm{C}}-{rm{TG}}}{A}_{{rm{C}}-{rm{TG}}}+k{R}_{{rm{PG}}}{A}_{{rm{TG}}}}{{A}_{{rm{C}}}}.$$
(4)
It follows from Eqs. (3) and (4), using the shorthand m = APG+TG/(APG + kATG) and noting that RPG = mRPG+TG, that$$frac{{R}_{{rm{PG}}}}{{R}_{{rm{C}}}}=frac{m{R}_{{rm{PG}}+{rm{TG}}}{A}_{{rm{C}}}}{{R}_{{rm{C}}-{rm{TG}}}{A}_{{rm{C}}-{rm{TG}}}+km{R}_{{rm{PG}}+{rm{TG}}}{A}_{{rm{TG}}}}={left(frac{{R}_{{rm{C}}-{rm{TG}}}}{m{R}_{{rm{PG}}+{rm{TG}}}}frac{{A}_{{rm{C}}-{rm{TG}}}}{{A}_{{rm{C}}}}+kfrac{{A}_{{rm{TG}}}}{{A}_{{rm{C}}}}right)}^{-1}.$$
(5)
Note that this expression, like Eq. (2), does not depend on the total quantity Qtot but only on various rate ratios and area ratios.As a secondary and last option, if only one of the rates was known, we instead estimated the rate ratio using the IFA/FAOSTAT total fertilizer quantity Qtot. For example,$$frac{{R}_{{rm{PG}}}}{{R}_{{rm{C}}}}=frac{{R}_{{rm{PG}}}{A}_{{rm{C}}}}{{Q}_{{rm{C}}}}=frac{{R}_{{rm{PG}}}({A}_{{rm{tot}}}-{A}_{{rm{PG}}})}{{Q}_{{rm{tot}}}-{R}_{{rm{PG}}}{A}_{{rm{PG}}}},$$where Atot is the total agricultural land area. More generally, the rate ratio ({R}_{x}/{R}_{widetilde{x}}) between a land category x and its complement (widetilde{x}) (i.e., the remainder of the agricultural land) can be written as$$frac{{R}_{x}}{{R}_{widetilde{x}}}=frac{{R}_{x}({A}_{{rm{tot}}}-{A}_{x})}{{Q}_{{rm{tot}}}-{R}_{x}{A}_{x}}.$$
(6)
We used this equation in several cases (details below) but only when the rate ratio could not be calculated directly as the ratio of two rates.As a final step, for years without data, we gap-filled the estimated rate ratios RPG/RC using linear interpolation between data points and constant extrapolation before and after the first and last data point. We then estimated the share applied on cropland using Eq. (2) with area data (AC and APG) from FAOSTAT/Eurostat. We finally calculated the fertilizer quantities to cropland and permanent grassland using these shares so that the quantities agree with total fertilizer consumption statistics but not necessarily with the collected data on crop-specific rates and quantities. The resulting estimates of synthetic N application on cropland and permanent grassland are provided in the data record12.Countries not using synthetic N fertilizer on permanent grasslandBased on the FAO/EFMA data and other publications we concluded that the following countries have zero or negligible fertilizer rates to permanent grassland: Bulgaria, Croatia, Estonia, Finland, Greece, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Portugal, Romania, Spain, and Sweden. These countries can conceptually be divided into two groups. One group is the countries in north-east Europe (Sweden, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania) which all have substantial areas of temporary grassland. In Sweden and Finland, intensive grassland cultivation is a central part of agriculture but occurs almost exclusively on arable land92,93. In Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, the grassland cultivation practices have varied substantially through the decades; since 1992 much grassland has been abandoned or very extensively managed57,77,94,95, and the FAO/EFMA datasets87,90 suggest that if any synthetic N inputs have been applied to grassland, it has been to temporary grassland. The other group (Bulgaria, Croatia, Greece, Hungary, Portugal, Romania, and Spain) has small or negligible areas of temporary grassland but considerable areas of permanent grassland, which however are mostly extensively managed due to a combination of economic and climatic conditions17,77,96,97,98,99,100,101,102,103. For both groups, the quantitative data87,88,89,90 suggests that synthetic N inputs to permanent grassland was negligible at least during the 1990s and 2000s, and since no data could be found before the 1990s we have set it to zero for the whole period 1961–2019.A caveat to this assumption applies especially to the former communist states, which before the 1990s typically had much higher fertilizer inputs and different patterns of agricultural land use. In this study this is not an issue for Croatia, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, which are included only from 1992, but for the former socialist republics of Bulgaria, Hungary, and Romania, which are included from 1961, we emphasize that data are very scarce.Countries using synthetic N fertilizer on permanent grasslandAustria. Most of Austria’s permanent grasslands are unfertilized104. Available quantitative data87,88,89,90,105 show that the rate ratio RPG/RC has been fairly constant in the period 1993–2006. Intensification of grassland fertilization is reported to have occured in the 1970s–1980s104 which roughly coincides with the steepest increase in total synthetic fertilizer use in Austria. We therefore extrapolated the average of the available rate ratio (RPG/RC ≈ 0.11) to the whole period 1961–2019.Belgium and Luxembourg. Belgium has a long history of heavy grassland fertilization106 but quantitative data are surprisingly scarce. The FAO/EFMA data shows that the average synthetic N rate on grassland (PG + TG) was on average 20% higher than on non-grass (C − TG) in the 1990s and 2000s. Since the fertilizer rates in Belgium-Luxembourg88 are practically indistinguishable from those referring to Belgium alone87,89,90, we pooled all the data and assumed the same rate ratio RPG/RC for Luxembourg ( More