Ecology

1.Rao, G. D., Sui, J. K. & Zhang, J. G. Metabolomics reveals significant variations in metabolites and correlations regarding the maturation of walnuts (Juglans regia L.). Biol Open 5, 829–836 (2016).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
2.Li, T. et al. Influence of green manure and rice straw management on soil organic carbon, enzyme activities, and rice yield in red paddy soil. Soil Till Res 195, 104428 (2019).3.Sharma, P. et al. Green manure as part of organic management cycle: effects on changes in organic matter characteristics across the soil profile. Geoderma 305, 197–207 (2017).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
4.Nivelle, E. et al. Functional response of soil microbial communities to tillage, cover crops and nitrogen fertilization. Appl. Soil Ecol. 108, 147–155 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
5.Mbuthia, L. W. et al. Long term tillage, cover crop, and fertilization effects on microbial community structure, activity: Implications for soil quality. Soil Biol Biochem. 89, 24–34 (2015).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
6.Chavarria, D. N. et al. Effect of cover crops on microbial community structure and related enzyme activities and macronutrient availability. Eur. J. Soil Biol. 76, 74–82 (2016).CAS 
Article 

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

Google Scholar 
8.Tian, Y., Zhang, X., Wang, J. & Gao, L. Soil microbial communities associated with the rhizosphere of cucumber under different summer cover crops and residue management: A 4-year field experiment. Sci. Hort. 150, 100–109 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
9.Capo-Bauca, S., Marques, A., Llopis-Vidal, N., Bota, J. & Baraza, E. Long-term establishment of natural green cover provides agroecosystem services by improving soil quality in a Mediterranean vineyard. Ecol. Eng. 127, 285–291 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
10.Saikia, R., Sharma, S., Thind, H. S., Sidhu, H. S. & Yadvinder, S. Temporal changes in biochemical indicators of soil quality in response to tillage, crop residue and green manure management in a rice-wheat system. Ecol. Indic. 103, 383–394 (2019).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
11.Acosta-Martinez, V. et al. Dryland cropping systems influence the microbial biomass and enzyme activities in a semiarid sandy soil. Biol. Fert. Soils 47, 655–667 (2011).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
12.Sharma, S. & Dhaliwal, S. S. Conservation agriculture based practices enhanced micronutrients transformation in earthworm cast soil under rice-wheat cropping system. Ecol Eng 163, 106195 (2021).13.Nunes, M. R., Karlen, D. L., Veum, K. S., Moorman, T. B. & Cambardella, C. A. Biological soil health indicators respond to tillage intensity: A US metaanalysis. Geoderma 369, 114335 (2020).14.Roper, M. M. & Gupta, V. V. S. R. Management practices and soil biota. Aust. J. Soil Res. 33, 321–339 (1995).Article 

Google Scholar 
15.Wortman, S. E., Drijber, R. A., Francis, C. A. & Lindquist, J. L. Arable weeds, cover crops, and tillage drive soil microbial community composition in organic cropping systems. Appl. Soil Ecol. 72, 232–241 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
16.Drijber, R. A., Doran, J. W., Parkhurst, A. M. & Lyon, D. J. Changes in soil microbial community structure with tillage under long-term wheat-fallow management. Soil. Biol. Biochem. 32, 1419–1430 (2000).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
17.Qian, X. et al. Effects of living mulches on the soil nutrient contents, enzyme activities, and bacterial community diversities of apple orchard soils. Eur. J. Soil Biol. 70, 23–30 (2015).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
18.Verzeaux, J. et al. Cover crops prevent the deleterious effect of nitrogen fertilisation on bacterial diversity by maintaining the carbon content of ploughed soil. Geoderma 281, 49–57 (2016).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
19.Rothe, M., Darnaudery, M. & Thuries, L. Organic fertilizers, green manures and mixtures of the two revealed their potential as substitutes for inorganic fertilizers used in pineapple cropping. Sci. Hort. 257, 108691 (2019)20.Lupwayi, N. Z., Larney, F. J., Blackshaw, R. E., Kanashiro, D. A. & Pearson, D. C. Phospholipid fatty acid biomarkers show positive soil microbial community responses to conservation soil management of irrigated crop rotations. Soil Till Res. 168, 1–10 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
21.Li, L., Larney, F. J., Angers, D. A., Pearson, D. C. & Blackshaw, R. E. Surface soil quality attributes following 12 years of conventional and conservation management on irrigated rotations in Southern Alberta. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 79, 930–942 (2015).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
22.Xu, Z. et al. The variations in soil microbial communities, enzyme activities and their relationships with soil organic matter decomposition along the northern slope of Changbai Mountain. Appl. Soil Ecol. 86, 19–29 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
23.Cusack, D. F., Silver, W. L., Torn, M. S., Burton, S. D. & Firestone, M. K. Changes in microbial community characteristics and soil organic matter with nitrogen additions in two tropical forests. Ecology 92, 621–632 (2011).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
24.Sinsabaugh, R. L. Phenol oxidase, peroxidase and organic matter dynamics of soil. Soil Biol. Biochem. 42, 391–404 (2010).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
25.Masai, E., Katayama, Y. & Fukuda, M. Genetic and biochemical investigations on bacterial catabolic pathways for lignin-derived aromatic compounds. Biosci. Biotechnol. Biochem. 71, 1–15 (2007).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
26.Falchini, L., Naumova, N., Kuikman, P. J., Bloem, J. & Nannipieri, P. CO2 evolution and denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis profiles of bacterial communities in soil following addition of low molecular weight substrates to simulate root exudation. Soil Biol. Biochem. 35, 775–782 (2003).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
27.Liang, S., Grossman, J. & Shi, W. Soil microbial responses to winter, legume cover crop management during organic transition. Eur. J. Soil Biol. 65, 15–22 (2014).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
28.Cruz, C., Green, J. J., Watson, C. A., Wilson, F. & Martins-Loução, M. A. Functional aspects of root architecture and mycorrhizal inoculation with respect to nutrient uptake capacity. Mycorrhiza 14, 177–184 (2004).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
29.Wu, Q. S., Zou, Y. N., He, X. H. & Luo, P. Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi can alter some root characters and physiological status in trifoliate orange (Poncirus trifoliata L. Raf) seedlings. Plant Growth Regul. 65, 273–278 (2011).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
30.Gutjahr, C. & Paszkowski, U. Multiple control levels of root system remodeling in arbuscular mycorrhizal symbiosis. Front. Plant Sci. 4, 204 (2013).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
31.Endlweber, K. & Scheu, S. Interactions between mycorrhizal fungi and Collembola: effects on root structure of competing plant species. Biol. Fertil. Soils 43, 741–749 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
32.Stevens, K. J., Wall, C. B. & Janssen, J. A. Effects of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi on seedling growth and development of two wetland plants, Bidens frondosa L., and Eclipta prostrate L., grown under three levels of water availability. Mycorrhiza 21, 279–288 (2011).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
33.Peng, L., Wen, Z., An, X., Han, J. & Jiang, Y. M. Effects of interplanting grass on utilization, loss and accumulation of 15N in apple orchard. Acta Pedol. Sin. 52, 950–956 (2015).
Google Scholar 
34.Sánchez, E. E. et al. Cover crops influence soil properties and tree performance in an organic apple (Malus domestica Borkh) orchard in northern Patagonia. Plant Soil 292, 193–203 (2007).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
35.Zhang, C. P., Meng, P., Zhang, J. S. & Wan, X. C. Effects of a nitrogen fixing plant Vigna radiata on growth, leaf stomatal gas exchange and hydraulic characteristics of the intercropping Juglans regia seedlings. Chin. J. Plant Ecol. 38, 499–506 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
36.Li, Y. Y., Hu, H. S., Cheng, X., Sun, J. H. & Li, L. Effects of interspecific interactions and nitrogen fertilization rates on above-and below-growth in faba bean/mazie intercropping system. Acta Ecol. Sin. 31, 1617–1630 (2011).
Google Scholar 
37.Nyamadzawo, G., Nyamangara, J., Nyamugafata, P. & Muzulu, A. Soil microbial biomass and mineralization of aggregate protected carbon in fallow-maize systems under conventional and no-tillage in Central Zimbabwe. Soil Tillage Res. 102, 151–157 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
38.Xiao, D. et al. Microbial biomass, metabolic functional diversity, and activity are affected differently by tillage disturbance and maize planting in a typical karst calcareous soil. J. Soil Sediment. 19, 809–821 (2019).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
39.Elfstrand, S., Bath, B. & Martensson, A. Influence of various forms of green manure amendment on soil microbial community composition, enzyme activity and nutrient levels in leek. Appl. Soil Ecol. 36, 70–82 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
40.Waring, B. G., Averill, C. & Hawkes, C. V. Differences in fungal and bacterial physiology alter soil carbon and nitrogen cycling: insights from meta-analysis and theoretical models. Ecol. Lett. 16, 887–894 (2013).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
41.Sinsabaugh, R. L. & Moorhead, D. L. Resource allocation to extracellular enzyme production: a model for nitrogen and phosphorus control of litter decomposition. Soil Biol. Biochem. 26, 1305–1311 (1994).Article 

Google Scholar 
42.DeForest, J. The influence of time, storage temperature, and substrate age on potential soil enzyme activity in acidic forest soils using MUB-linked substrates and L-DOPA. Soil Biol. Biochem. 41, 1180–1186 (2009).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
43.Saiya-Cork, K. R., Sinsabaugh, R. L. & Zak, D. R. The effects of long term nitrogen deposition on extracellular enzyme activity in an Acer saccharum forest soil. Soil. Biol. Biochem. 34, 1309–1315 (2002).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
44.Schutter, M. E. & Dick, R. P. Comparison of fatty acid methyl ester (FAME) methods for characterizing microbial communities. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 64, 1659–1668 (2000).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
45.Bowles, T. M., Acosta-Martinez, V., Calderon, F. & Jackson, L. E. Soil enzyme activities, microbial communities, and carbon and nitrogen availability in organic agroecosystems across an intensively-managed agricultural landscape. Soil Biol. Biochem. 68, 252–262 (2014).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar  More

1.Cury, P. M. et al. Global seabird response to forage fish depletion—one-third for the birds. Science 23(6063), 1703–1706 (2011).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
2.Pikitch, K. E. The risks of overfishing. Science 338, 474–475. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1229965 (2012).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
3.F.A.O. The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture. Meeting the Sustainable Development Goals. Italy, Rome, http://www.fao.org/documents/card/en/c/I9540EN/ (2018).4.Branch, G. M. & Steffani, C. N. Can we predict the effects of alien species? A case-history of the invasion of South Africa by Mytilus galloprovincialis (Lamarck). J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 300, 189–215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jembe.2003.12.007 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
5.de Graaf, M. M. et al. Declining stocks of Lake Tana’s endemic Barbus species flock (Pisces, Cyprinidae): natural variation or human impact?. Biol. Conserv. 116, 277–287. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0006-3207(03)00198-8 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
6.Davidson, N. C. How much wetland has the world lost? Long-term and recent trends in the global wetland area. Mar. Freshwater. Res. 65, 934–941. https://doi.org/10.1071/MF14173 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
7.Landrigan, P. J. et al. The lancet commission on pollution and health. Lancet 91, 462–512. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(17)32345-0 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
8.Döll, P. et al. Integrating risks of climate change into water management. Hydrol. Sci. J. 60, 4–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/02626667.2014.967250 (2015).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
9.Whitehead, P. R. et al. A review of the potential impacts of climate change on surface water quality. Hydrol. Sci. J. 54, 101–123. https://doi.org/10.1623/hysj.54.1.101 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
10.Knouft, J. H. & Ficklin, D. L. The potential impacts of climate change on biodiversity in flowing freshwater systems. Annu. Rev. Ecol Evol. Syst. 48, 111–133 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
11.Claireaux, G. & Chabot, G. Responses by fishes to environmental hypoxia: integration through Fry’s concept of aerobic metabolic scope. J. Fish. Biol. 88, 232–251. https://doi.org/10.1111/jfb.12833 (2016).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
12.Hadjinikolova, L., Nikolova, L. & Stoeva, A. Comparative investigations on the nutritive value of carp fish meat (Cyprinidae), grown at organic aquaculture conditions. Bulg. J. Agric. Sci. 14, 127–132 (2008).
Google Scholar 
13.Ljubojević, D. et al. Fat quality of marketable fresh water fish species in the Republic of Serbia. Czech. J. Food Sci. 31, 445–450. https://doi.org/10.17221/53/2013-CJFS (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
14.Pyz-Łukasik, R. & Paszkiewicz, W. Species variations in the proximate composition, amino acid profile, and protein quality of the muscle tissue of grass carp, bighead carp, Siberian sturgeon, and wels catfish. J. Food. Qual. 2018, 2625401. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/2625401 (2018).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
15.Enders, E. C. & Boisclair, D. Effects of environmental fluctuations on fish metabolism: Atlantic salmon Salmo salar as a case study. J. Fish. Biol. 88, 344–358. https://doi.org/10.1111/jfb.12786 (2016).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
16.Zheng, J. L. et al. Dietary L-carnitine supplementation increases lipid deposition in the liver and muscle of yellow catfish (Pelteobagrus fulvidraco) through changes in lipid metabolism. Br. J. Nutr. 112, 698–708. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007114514001378 (2014).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
17.Geda, F. et al. β-Alanine does not act through branched-chain amino acid catabolism in carp, a species with low muscular carnosine storage. Fish. Physiol. Biochem. 41, 281–287. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10695-014-0024-7 (2015).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
18.Sabzi, E., Mohammadiazarm, H. & Salati, A. P. Effect of dietary L-carnitine and lipid levels on growth performance, blood biochemical parameters, and antioxidant status in juvenile common carp (Cyprinus carpio). Aquaculture 480, 89–93. https://doi.org/10.3390/antiox10010036 (2017).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
19.Geda, F. et al. Changes in intestinal morphology and amino acid catabolism in common carp at mildly elevated temperature as affected by dietary mannan oligosaccharides. Anim. Feed. Sci. Technol. 178, 95–102 (2012).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
20.Geda, F. et al. The metabolic response in fish to mildly elevated water temperature relates to species-dependent muscular concentrations of imidazole compounds and free amino acids. J. Therm. Biol. 65, 57–63 (2017).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
21.Li, J. M. et al. Corrigendum: systemic regulation of L-carnitine in nutritional metabolism in zebrafish. Danio rerio. Sci. Rep. 7, 44970. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep44970 (2017).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
22.Butler, P. J., Green, J. A., Boyd, I. L. & Speakman, J. R. Measuring metabolic rate in the field: the pros and cons of the doubly labelled water and heart rate methods. Funct. Ecol. 18, 168–183. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0269-8463.2004.00821.x (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
23.Forster, J., Hirst, A. G. & Atkinson, D. Warming-induced reductions in body size are greater in aquatic than terrestrial species. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 109, 19310–19314 (2012).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
24.McKnight, C. L. et al. Introduction to metabolism. In Surgical Metabolism (eds Davis, K. & Rosenbaum, S.) (Springer, Cham, 2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-39781-4_1.Chapter 

Google Scholar 
25.Li, L. Y. et al. Mitochondrial fatty acid β-oxidation inhibition promotes glucose utilization and protein deposition through energy homeostasis remodeling in fish. J. Nutr. 150, 2322–2335 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
26.Miyaaki, H. et al. Blood carnitine profiling on tandem mass spectrometry in liver cirrhotic patients. BMC Gastroenterol. 20, 41. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12876-020-01190-6 (2020).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
27.Worku, K. et al. Measuring seasonal and agro-ecological effects on nutritional status in tropical ranging dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 104, 4341–4349 (2021).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
28.Brenes-Soto, A. et al. Gaining insights in the nutritional metabolism of amphibians: analyzing body nutrient profiles of the African clawed frog. Xenopus laevis. PeerJ. 7, e7365 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
29.Tilahun, G. & Ahlgren, G. Seasonal variations in phytoplankton biomass and primary production in the Ethiopian Rift Valley lakes Ziway, Awassa, and Chamo-The basis for fish production. Limnlogica 40, 330–342. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.limno.2009.10.005 (2010).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
30.Vijverberg, J. et al. Zooplankton, fish communities and the role of planktivory in nine Ethiopian lakes. Hydrobiology 722, 45–60. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-013-1674-7 (2014).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
31.Dagne, A., Herzig, A., Jersabek, C. & Tadesse, Z. Abundance, species composition and spatial distribution of planktonic rotifers and crustaceans in Lake Ziway (Rift Valley, Ethiopia). Int. Rev. Hydrobiol. 93, 210–226. https://doi.org/10.1002/iroh.200711005 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
32.Engdaw, F., Dadebo, E. & Nagappan, R. Morphometric relationships and feeding habits of Nile tilapia Oreochromis niloticus (L.) (Pisces: Cichlidae) from Lake Koka, Ethiopia. Int. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 2, 65–71 (2013).
Google Scholar 
33.Gouni, M. M. & Sommer, U. Review: effects of harmful blooms of large-sized and colonial cyanobacteria on aquatic food webs. Water 12, 1587. https://doi.org/10.3390/w12061587 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
34.Menezes, R. F., Attayde, J. L. & Vasconcelos, F. R. Effects of omnivorous filter-feeding fish and nutrient enrichment on the plankton community and water transparency of a tropical reservoir. Freshw. Biol. 55, 767–779 (2010).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
35.Ibrahim, A. F. N., Noll, M. S. C. & Valenti, W. C. Zooplankton capturing by Nile Tilapia, Oreochromis niloticus (Teleostei: Cichlidae) throughout post-larval development. Zologica 32, 469–475. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1984-46702015000600006 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
36.Ambelu, A., Lock, K. & Goethals, P. L. M. Hydrological and anthropogenic influence in the Gilgel Gibe I reservoir (Ethiopia) on macroinvertebrate assemblages. Lake. Reserv. Manag. 29, 143–150. https://doi.org/10.1080/10402381.2013.806971 (2013).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
37.Bayissa, T. N. et al. The impact of lake ecosystems on mineral concentrations in tissues of Nile tilapia (Oreochromis Niloticus L.). Animals 11, 1000 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
38.Puvvada, Y., Vankayalapati, S. & Sukhavasi, S. Extraction of chitin from chitosan from the exoskeleton of shrimp for application in the pharmaceutical industry. Int. Curr. Pharm. J. 1, 258–263. https://doi.org/10.3329/icpj.v1i9.11616 (2012).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
39.Zhang, D., Jin, Y., Deng, Y., Wang, D. & Zhao, Y. Production of chitin from shrimp shell powders using Serratia Marcescens B742 and Lactobacillus Plantarum ATCC 8014 successive two-step fermentation. Carbohydr. Res. 362, 13–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carres.2012.09.011 (2012).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
40.Philibert, T., Lee, B. H. & Fabien, N. Current status and new perspectives on chitin and chitosan as functional biopolymers. Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol. 181, 1314–1337. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12010-016-2286-2 (2017).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
41.Matsumiya, M. & Mochizuki, A. Distribution of chitinase and β-N-acetylhexosaminidase in the organs of several fishes. Fish Res. 62, 150–151. https://doi.org/10.2331/fishsci.62.150 (1996).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
42.Gutowska, M. A., Drazen, J. C. & Robison, B. H. Digestive chitinolytic activity in marine fishes of Monterey Bay, California. Comput. Biochem. Physiol. 139, 351–358 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
43.Molinari, L. M. et al. Identification and partial characterization of a chitinase from Nile tilapia, Oreochromis niloticus. Comput. Biochem. Physiol. 146, 81–87 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
44.Cauchie, H. M. Chitin production by arthropods in the hydrosphere. Hydrobiol. 470, 63–96. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015615819301 (2002).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
45.Merga, L. B. et al. Trends in chemical pollution and ecological status of Lake Ziway, Ethiopia: a review focusing on nutrients, metals and pesticides. Afr. J. Aquat. Sci. 45, 386–400 (2020).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
46.Clark, T. D. et al. The efficacy of field techniques for obtaining and storing blood samples from fishes. J. Fish. Biol. 79, 1322–1333. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8649.2011.03118.x (2011).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
47.Ferguson, H. Blood sampling standard operating procedure. Aquatic Animal Diseases Lab Manual, Department of Integrative Biology, University of Guelph, Quelph, Canada. https://www.uoguelph.ca/ib/sites/uoguelph.ca.ib/files/public/fishbloodsamplingSOP.pdf (2005).48.Arends, R. J., Mancera, J. M., Muñoz, J. L., Wendelaar Bonga, S. E. & Flik, G. The stress response of the gilthead seabream (Sparus aurata L.) to air exposure and confinement. J. Endocr. 163, 149–157. https://doi.org/10.1677/joe.0.1630149 (1999).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
49.Zytkovicz, T. H. et al. Tandem mass spectrometric analysis for amino, organic, and fatty acid disorders in newborn dried blood spots: a two-year summary from the New England Newborn Screening Program. Clin. Chem. 47, 1945–1955 (2001).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
50.Vieira Neto, E. et al. Analysis of acylcarnitine profiles in umbilical cord blood and during the early neonatal period by electrospray ionization tandem mass spectrometry. Braz. J. Med. Biol. Res. 45, 546–556. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0100-879X2012007500056 (2012).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
51.AOAC. Official methods of analysis of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists, 15th ed. Methods 962.09, 954.01. AOAC, Arlington, VA, USA. https://archive.org/stream/gov.law.aoac.methods.1.1990/aoac.methods.1.1990_djvu.txt (1990).52.Pearson, D. Pearson Composition and Analysis of Foods (University of Reading, Reading, 1999).
Google Scholar  More

1.IBGE. Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística – Censo Agro 2017. IBGE | Censo Agro 2017, Dados preliminares https://censos.ibge.gov.br/agro/2017/ (2017).2.Boldrini, I. I. et al. Flora. In Biodiversidade dos Campos do Planalto das Araucárias 39–94 (2009).3.Iganci, J. R. V., Heiden, G., Miotto, S. T. S. & Pennington, R. T. Campos de Cima da Serra: The Brazilian subtropical highland Grasslands show an unexpected level of plant endemism. Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 167, 378–393 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
4.Borer, E. T. et al. Herbivores and nutrients control grassland plant diversity via light limitation. Nature 508, 517–520 (2014).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
5.Alhamad, M. N. & Alrababah, M. A. Defoliation and competition effects in a productivity gradient for a semiarid Mediterranean annual grassland community. Basic Appl. Ecol. 9, 224–232 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
6.Fedrigo, J. K. et al. Temporary grazing exclusion promotes rapid recovery of species richness and productivity in a long-term overgrazed Campos grassland. Restor. Ecol. https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.12635 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
7.Mavromihalis, J. A., Dorrough, J., Clark, S. G., Turner, V. & Moxham, C. Manipulating livestock grazing to enhance native plant diversity and cover in native grasslands. Rangel. J. 35, 95–108 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
8.Bircham, J. S. & Hodgson, J. The influence of sward condition on rates of herbage growth and senescence in mixed swards under continuous stocking management. Grass Forage Sci. 38, 323–331 (1983). Article 

Google Scholar 
9.Sbrissia, A. F. et al. Defoliation strategies in pastures submitted to intermittent stocking method: Underlying mechanisms buffering forage accumulation over a range of grazing heights. Crop Sci. 58, 945–954 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
10.Jaurena, M. et al. Native grasslands at the core: A new paradigm of intensification for the Campos of Southern South America to increase economic and environmental sustainability. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 5, 11 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
11.Cruz, P. et al. Leaf traits as functional descriptors of the intensity of continuous grazing in native grasslands in the South of Brazil. Rangel. Ecol. Manag. 63, 350–358 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
12.Benitez, C. A. & Fernandez, J. G. Espécies forrageiras de la pradera natural: Fenologia y respuesta a la frequência e severidad de corte (1970).13.Herve, A. M. B. & Valls, J. F. M. Genêro Andropogon L. (Gramineae) no Rio Grande do Sul. Anuario tecnico do Instituto de Pesquisas Zootecnicas Francisco Osorio (1980).14.Zanin, A. & Longhi-Wagner, H. M. Revisão de Andropogon (Poaceae – Andropogoneae) para o Brasil. Rodriguesia 62, 171–202 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
15.Augustine, D. J. & McNaughton, S. J. Ungulate effects on the functional species composition of plant communities: Herbivore selectivity and plant tolerance. J. Wildl. Manag. 62, 1165 (1998).Article 

Google Scholar 
16.Fraser, L. H. et al. Worldwide evidence of a unimodal relationship between productivity and plant species richness. Science 350, 1177b (2015).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
17.Connell, J. H. Diversity in tropical rain forests and coral reefs: High diversity of trees and corals is maintained only in a nonequilibrium state. Science 199, 1302–1310 (1978).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
18.Milchunas, D. G., Sala, O. E. & Lauenroth, W. K. A generalized model of the effects of grazing by large herbivores on grassland community structure. Am. Nat. 132, 87–106 (1988).Article 

Google Scholar 
19.Liu, J. et al. Impacts of grazing by different large herbivores in grassland depend on plant species diversity. J. Appl. Ecol. 52(4), 1053–1062 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
20.Ren, H., Schönbach, P., Wan, H., Gierus, M. & Taube, F. Effects of grazing intensity and environmental factors on species composition and diversity in typical Steppe of Inner Mongolia, China. PLoS ONE 7(12), e52180 (2012).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
21.Sbrissia, A. F., Silva, S. C., Schmitt, D. & Duchini, P. G. Unravelling the relationship between a seasonal environment and the dynamics of forage growth in grazed swards. J. Agron. Crop Sci. 206, 630–639 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
22.Hernández-Lambraño, R. E., González-Moreno, P. & Sánchez-Agudo, J. Á. Towards the top: Niche expansion of Taraxacum officinale and Ulex europaeus in mountain regions of South America. Austral. Ecol. 42, 577–589 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
23.Pinto, L. F. M. et al. Dinâmica do acúmulo de matéria seca em pastagens de Tifton 85 sob pastejo. Sci. Agric. 58, 439–447 (2001).Article 

Google Scholar 
24.Duchini, P. G., Guzatti, G. C., Ribeiro Filho, H. M. N. & Sbrissia, A. F. Tiller size/density compensation in temperate climate grasses grown in monoculture or in intercropping systems under intermittent grazing. Grass Forage Sci. 69, 655–665 (2014).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
25.Briske, D. D. & Anderson, V. J. Competitive ability of the bunchgrass Schizachyrium scoparium as affected by grazing history and defoliation. Vegetatio 103, 41–49 (1992).
Google Scholar 
26.Altesor, A., Oesterheld, M., Leoni, E., Lezama, F. & Rodriguez, C. Effect of grazing on community structure and productivity of a Uruguayan grassland. Plant Ecol. 179, 83–91 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
27.Lezama, F. et al. Variation of grazing-induced vegetation changes across a large-scale productivity gradient. J. Veg. Sci. 25, 8–21 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
28.Lattanzi, F. A. et al. 13C-labeling shows the effect of hierarchy on the carbon gain of individuals and functional groups in dense field stands. Ecology 93, 169–179 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
29.Roscher, C. et al. Functional composition has stronger impact than species richness on carbon gain and allocation in experimental grasslands. PLoS ONE 14(1), e0204715 (2019).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
30.Wan, C. & Sosebee, R. E. Central dieback of the dryland bunchgrass Eragrostis curvula (weeping lovegrass) re-examined: The experimental clearance of tussock centres. J. Arid Environ. 46, 69–78 (2000).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
31.Angassa, A. Effects of grazing intensity and bush encroachment on herbaceous species and rangeland condition in Southern Ethiopia. L. Degrad. Dev. 25, 438–451 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
32.Schultz, N. L., Morgan, J. W. & Lunt, I. D. Effects of grazing exclusion on plant species richness and phytomass accumulation vary across a regional productivity gradient. J. Veg. Sci. 22, 130–142 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
33.Chaneton, E. J. & Facelli, J. M. Disturbance effects on plant community diversity: Spatial scales and dominance hierarchies. Vegetatio 93, 143–155 (1991).Article 

Google Scholar 
34.Tow, P. G. & Lazenby, A. Competition and Succession in Pastures (CAB International, 2001). doi:https://doi.org/10.1079/9780851994413.0000.35.Briske, D. D. & Hendrickson, J. R. Does selective defoliation mediate competitive interactions in a semiarid savannah? A demographic evaluation. J. Veg. Sci. 9, 611–622 (1998).Article 

Google Scholar 
36.Baer, S. G., Blair, J. M. & Collins, S. L. Environmental heterogeneity has a weak effect on diversity during community assembly in tallgrass prairie. Ecol. Monogr. 86, 94–106 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
37.Alvares, C. A., Stape, J. L., Sentelhas, P. C., Gonçalves, J. L. M. & Sparovek, G. Köppen’s climate classification map for Brazil. Meteorol. Zeitschrift 22, 711–728 (2013).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
38.Pallarés, O. R., Berretta, E. J. & Maraschin, G. The South American Campos ecosystem BT—Grasslands of the World. Grasslands of the World 1–49 (2005). 39.Allen, V. G. et al. An international terminology for grazing lands and grazing animals. Grass Forage Sci. 66, 2–28 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
40.Zanini, G. D., Santos, G. T., Schmitt, D. & Padilha, D. A. Distribuição de colmo na estrutura vertical de pastos de capim Aruana e azevém anual submetidos a pastejo intermitente por ovinos. Ciênc. Rural 42, 882–887 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
41.Carvalho, P. C. F. Harry Stobbs Memorial Lecture: Can grazing behaviour support innovations in grassland management?. Trop. Grassl. Forrajes Trop. 1, 137–155 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
42.Barthram, G. T. Experimental techniques: The HFRO sward stick. In The Hill Farming Research Organization Biennial Report 1984/1985 29–30 (HFRO, 1985).43.Haydock, K. P. & Shaw, N. H. The comparative yield method for estimating dry matter yield of pasture. Aust. J. Exp. Agric. 15, 663–670 (1975).
Google Scholar 
44.Williams, R. J. Gap dynamics in subalpine heathland and grassland vegetation in south-eastern Australia. J. Ecol. 80, 343–352 (1992).Article 

Google Scholar 
45.Derner, J. D., Briske, D. D. & Polley, H. W. Tiller organization within the tussock grass Schizachyrium scoparium: A field assessment of competition–cooperation tradeoffs. Botany 90, 669–677 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
46.Mueller-Dombois, D. & Ellenberg, D. Aims and methods of vegetation ecology. In Community Sampling: The Relevé Method 45–66 (1974).47.Tothill, J. C., Hargreaves, J. N. G., Jones, R. M. & McDonald, C. K. Botanal—A comprehensive sampling and computing procedure for estimating pasture yield and composition. 1. Field sampling. Trop. Agron. Tech. Mem. 78, 1–24 (1992).
Google Scholar 
48.’t Mannetje, L. Measuring biomass of grassland vegetation. In Field and Laboratory Methods for Grassland and Animal Production Research 151–177 (CABI, 2000). doi:https://doi.org/10.1079/9780851993515.0151.49.Oksanen, F.J., Blanchet, G., Friendly, M., Kindt, R., Legendre, P. et al. vegan: Community Ecology Package. R package version 2.5-7. (2020). https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=vegan.50.Kindt, R. & Coe, R. Tree diversity analysis. A manual and software for common statistical methods for ecological and biodiversity studies. World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF), Nairobi. ISBN: 92-9059-179-X (2005).51.R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. (2021). https://www.R-project.org/.52.Watkins, A. J. & Wilson, J. B. Plant community structure, and its relation to the vertical complexity of communities: dominance/diversity and spatial rank consistency. Oikos 70, 91–98 (1994).Article 

Google Scholar 
53.Bates, D., Mächler, M., Zurich, E., Bolker, B. M. & Walker, S. C. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J. Stat. Softw. 67, 1–48 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
54.Sbrissia, A. F., Zanella, P. G., Pinto, C. E., Baldissera, T. C. & Garagorry, F. C. Natural grasslands experiment – 2015 – 2017 – Pablo. figshare. https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.14055419.v1 (2021). More

1.Brown, J. H. & Maurer, B. A. Macroecology: the division of food and space among species on continents. Science 243, 1145–1150 (1989).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
2.Gaston, K. J., Robinson, D. & Chown, S. L. Macrophysiology: large-scale patterns in physiological traits and their ecological implications. Funct. Ecol. 18, 159–167 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
3.Chown, S. L. & Gaston, K. J. Macrophysiology–progress and prospects. Funct. Ecol. 30, 330–344 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
4.Avise, J. C. Phylogeography: the History and Formation of Species (Harvard University Press, 2000).5.Ebach, M. C. Origins of Biogeography. Vol. 13 (Springer, 2015).6.Brundin, L. On the real nature of transantarctic relationships. Evolution 19, 496–505 (1965).
Google Scholar 
7.Beheregaray, L. B. Twenty years of phylogeography: the state of the field and the challenges for the Southern Hemisphere. Mol. Ecol. 17, 3754–3774 (2008).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
8.Hickerson, M. J. et al. Phylogeography’s past, present, and future: 10 years after Avise, 2000. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 54, 291–301 (2010).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
9.Gaston, K. J. & Blackburn, T. M. A critique for macroecology. Oikos 84, 353–368 (1999).Article 

Google Scholar 
10.Lovegrove, B. G. The zoogeography of mammalian basal metabolic rate. Am. Nat. 156, 201–219 (2000).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
11.Reich, P. B., Walters, M. B. & Ellsworth, D. S. From tropics to tundra: Global convergence in plant functioning. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 94, 13730–13734 (1997).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
12.Chown, S. L. & Gaston, K. J. Macrophysiology for a changing world. Proc. Biol. Sci. 275, 1469–1478 (2008).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
13.Kerr, J. T., Kharouba, H. M. & Currie, D. J. The macroecological contribution to global change solutions. Science 316, 1581–1584 (2007).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
14.Blanchet, S., Prunier, J. G. & De Kort, H. Time to go bigger: Emerging patterns in macrogenetics. Trends Genet. 33, 579–580 (2017). This study coined the term ‘macrogenetics’ and illustrated, through three study examples, how shifting toward macrogenetics should generate new perspectives and theories concerning genetic diversity patterns.CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
15.Blanchet, S. et al. A river runs through it: the causes, consequences, and management of intraspecific diversity in river networks. Evol. Appl. 13, 1195–1213 (2020).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
16.Frankham, R. Resolving conceptual issues in conservation genetics: the roles of laboratory species and meta-analyses. Hereditas 130, 195–201 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
17.Arnqvist, G. & Wooster, D. Meta-analysis: synthesizing research findings in ecology and evolution. Trends Ecol. Evol. 10, 236–240 (1995).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
18.Paz-Vinas, I. et al. Systematic conservation planning for intraspecific genetic diversity. Proc. Biol. Sci. 285, 20172746 (2018).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
19.Pelletier, T. A. & Carstens, B. C. Geographical range size and latitude predict population genetic structure in a global survey. Biol. Lett. 14, 20170566 (2018).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
20.Miraldo, A. et al. An anthropocene map of genetic diversity. Science 353, 1532–1535 (2016). This paper is thought to be the first published study to massively repurpose public mtDNA sequences to explore global genetic patterns (100,791 sequences from >4,500 terrestrial mammal and amphibian species).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
21.Yiming, L. et al. Latitudinal gradients in genetic diversity and natural selection at a highly adaptive gene in terrestrial mammals. Ecography 44, 206–218 (2021). This study found that adaptive IGV is higher at low latitudes and in smaller mammal species using repurposed MHC gene data from 93 mammal species.Article 

Google Scholar 
22.Manel, S. et al. Global determinants of freshwater and marine fish genetic diversity. Nat. Commun. 11, 692 (2020). This study repurposed 58,565 public mtDNA sequences from 5,912 freshwater and marine fish to explore the effects of environmental drivers (temperature, species diversity) on intraspecific genetic diversity.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
23.Theodoridis, S. et al. Evolutionary history and past climate change shape the distribution of genetic diversity in terrestrial mammals. Nat. Commun. 11, 2557 (2020). This study revealed a negative effect of past rapid climate change and a positive effect of interannual precipitation variability in shaping the genetic diversity of terrestrial mammals using 46,965 mtDNA sequences.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
24.Barrow, L. N., da Fonseca, E. M., Thompson, C. E. P. & Carstens, B. C. Predicting amphibian intraspecific diversity with machine learning: Challenges and prospects for integrating traits, geography, and genetic data. Mol. Ecol. Resour. https://doi.org/10.1111/1755-0998.13303 (2020).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
25.De Kort, H. et al. Life history, climate and biogeography interactively affect worldwide genetic diversity of plant and animal populations. Nat. Commun. 12, 516 (2021). This study found weak support for latitudinal IGV gradients, taxonomic-specific effects of temperature stability and life-history traits, and higher IGV in animals compared to plants using microsatellite and amplified fragment length polymorphism data from 8,386 local populations from 727 animal and plant species.PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
26.Schmidt, C., Domaratzki, M., Kinnunen, R. P., Bowman, J. & Garroway, C. J. Continent-wide effects of urbanization on bird and mammal genetic diversity. Proc. Biol. Sci. 287, 20192497 (2020). This study used archived microsatellite data from 85 studies (66 species) to explore the effects of urbanization in mammals and birds.CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
27.Millette, K. L. et al. No consistent effects of humans on animal genetic diversity worldwide. Ecol. Lett. 23, 55–67 (2020). The authors of this article conducted spatial and temporal analysis of the effects of humans on animal genetic diversity worldwide, by repurposing 175,247 mtDNA sequences from >17,000 animal species.PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
28.Taberlet, P. et al. Genetic diversity in widespread species is not congruent with species richness in alpine plant communities. Ecol. Lett. 15, 1439–1448 (2012). This paper reports a Class I macrogenetic study based on amplified fragment length polymorphism genetic data from 27 alpine plant species that tested whether genetic and species diversities co-vary.PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
29.Manel, S. et al. Broad-scale adaptive genetic variation in alpine plants is driven by temperature and precipitation. Mol. Ecol. 21, 3729–3738 (2012).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
30.Gugerli, F. et al. Relationships among levels of biodiversity and the relevance of intraspecific diversity in conservation – a project synopsis. Perspect. Plant. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 10, 259–281 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
31.Schlaepfer, D. R., Braschler, B., Rusterholz, H.-P. & Baur, B. Genetic effects of anthropogenic habitat fragmentation on remnant animal and plant populations: a meta-analysis. Ecosphere 9, e02488 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
32.González, A. V., Gómez-Silva, V., Ramírez, M. J. & Fontúrbel, F. E. Meta-analysis of the differential effects of habitat fragmentation and degradation on plant genetic diversity. Conserv. Biol. 34, 711–720 (2020).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
33.Ratnasingham, S. & Hebert, P. D. N. Bold: the barcode of life data system. Mol. Ecol. Notes 7, 355–364 (2007).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
34.Hijmans, R. J., Cameron, S. E., Parra, J. L., Jones, P. G. & Jarvis, A. Very high resolution interpolated climate surfaces for global land areas. Int. J. Climatol. 25, 1965–1978 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
35.Kattge, J. et al. TRY plant trait database–enhanced coverage and open access. Glob. Change Biol. 26, 119–188 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
36.Theodoridis, S., Rahbek, C. & Nogues-Bravo, D. Exposure of mammal genetic diversity to mid-21st century global change. Ecography 44, 817–831 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
37.Rissler, L. J. Union of phylogeography and landscape genetics. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, 8079–8086 (2016).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
38.Hubbell, S. P. The unified neutral theory of biodiversity and biogeography (Princeton University Press, 2001).39.Haldane, J. B. S. A mathematical theory of natural and artificial selection, Part V: selection and mutation. Math. Proc. Camb. Philos. Soc. 23, 838–844 (1927).Article 

Google Scholar 
40.Wright, S. Evolution in Mendelian populations. Genetics 16, 97–159 (1931).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
41.Fisher, R. A. On the dominance ratio. Proc. R. Soc. Edinburgh 42, 321–341 (1922).Article 

Google Scholar 
42.Kimura, M. & Weiss, G. H. The stepping stone model of population structure and the decrease of genetic correlation with distance. Genetics 49, 561–576 (1964).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
43.Kingman, J. F. C. The coalescent. Stoch. Process. Their Appl. 13, 235–248 (1982).Article 

Google Scholar 
44.Kimura, M. Evolutionary rate at the molecular level. Nature 217, 624–626 (1968).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
45.Soulé, M. E. in Molecular Evolution (ed. Ayala, F. J.) 60–77 (Sinauer Associates, 1976).46.Brown, A. H. Isozymes, plant population genetic structure and genetic conservation. Tag. Theor. Appl. Genet. Theor. Angew. Genet. 52, 145–157 (1978).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
47.Mullis, K. et al. Specific enzymatic amplification of DNA in vitro: the polymerase chain reaction. Cold Spring Harb. Symp. Quant. Biol. 51, 263–273 (1986).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
48.Sanger, F., Nicklen, S. & Coulson, A. R. DNA sequencing with chain-terminating inhibitors. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 74, 5463–5467 (1977).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
49.Miller, M. R., Dunham, J. P., Amores, A., Cresko, W. A. & Johnson, E. A. Rapid and cost-effective polymorphism identification and genotyping using restriction site associated DNA (RAD) markers. Genome Res. 17, 240–248 (2007).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
50.Carroll, E. L. et al. Genetic and genomic monitoring with minimally invasive sampling methods. Evol. Appl. 11, 1094–1119 (2018).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
51.Hebert, P. D. N., Cywinska, A., Ball, S. L. & deWaard, J. R. Biological identifications through DNA barcodes. Proc. Biol. Sci. 270, 313–321 (2003).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
52.Taberlet, P., Coissac, E., Pompanon, F., Brochmann, C. & Willerslev, E. Towards next-generation biodiversity assessment using DNA metabarcoding. Mol. Ecol. 21, 2045–2050 (2012).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
53.Gauthier, J. et al. Museomics identifies genetic erosion in two butterfly species across the 20th century in Finland. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 20, 1191–1205 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
54.Wandeler, P., Hoeck, P. E. A. & Keller, L. F. Back to the future: museum specimens in population genetics. Trends Ecol. Evol. 22, 634–642 (2007).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
55.Strasser, B. J. The experimenter’s museum: GenBank, natural history, and the moral economies of biomedicine. Isis 102, 60–96 (2011).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
56.Whitlock, M. C. Data archiving in ecology and evolution: best practices. Trends Ecol. Evol. 26, 61–65 (2011).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
57.Wilkinson, M. D. et al. The FAIR guiding principles for scientific data management and stewardship. Sci. Data 3, 160018 (2016).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
58.Deck, J. et al. The Genomic Observatories Metadatabase (GeOMe): A new repository for field and sampling event metadata associated with genetic samples. PLoS Biol. 15, e2002925 (2017).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
59.R Core Team. R: a language and environment for statistical computing, R Foundation for Statistical Computing http://www.r-project.org/index.html (2021).60.Manel, S. & Holderegger, R. Ten years of landscape genetics. Trends Ecol. Evol. 28, 614–621 (2013).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
61.Prunier, J. G., Colyn, M., Legendre, X., Nimon, K. F. & Flamand, M. C. Multicollinearity in spatial genetics: separating the wheat from the chaff using commonality analyses. Mol. Ecol. 24, 263–283 (2015).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
62.Stanley, R. R. E. et al. A climate-associated multispecies cryptic cline in the northwest Atlantic. Sci. Adv. 4, eaaq0929 (2018).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
63.Fenderson, L. E., Kovach, A. I. & Llamas, B. Spatiotemporal landscape genetics: investigating ecology and evolution through space and time. Mol. Ecol. 29, 218–246 (2020).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
64.Daza, J. M., Castoe, T. A. & Parkinson, C. L. Using regional comparative phylogeographic data from snake lineages to infer historical processes in middle America. Ecography 33, 343–354 (2010).
Google Scholar 
65.Riddle, B. R. Comparative phylogeography clarifies the complexity and problems of continental distribution that drove A. R. Wallace to favor islands. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, 7970–7977 (2016).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
66.Carstens, B. C., Morales, A. E., Field, K. & Pelletier, T. A. A global analysis of bats using automated comparative phylogeography uncovers a surprising impact of Pleistocene glaciation. J. Biogeogr. 45, 1795–1805 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
67.Smith, B. T., Seeholzer, G. F., Harvey, M. G., Cuervo, A. M. & Brumfield, R. T. A latitudinal phylogeographic diversity gradient in birds. PLoS Biol. 15, e2001073 (2017).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

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

Google Scholar 
69.Ballin, M., Barcaroli, G., Masselli, M. & Scarnó, M. Redesign Sample for Land Use/Cover Area Frame Survey (LUCAS) 2018 (EU Publications, 2018).70.Buchhorn, M. et al. Copernicus global land cover layers — Collection 2. Remote. Sens. 12, 1044 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
71.Jones, K. E. et al. PanTHERIA: a species-level database of life history, ecology, and geography of extant and recently extinct mammals: Ecological Archives E090-184. Ecology 90, 2648–2648 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
72.Tedesco, P. A. et al. A global database on freshwater fish species occurrence in drainage basins. Sci. Data 4, 170141 (2017).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
73.Vellend, M. & Geber, M. A. Connections between species diversity and genetic diversity: species diversity and genetic diversity. Ecol. Lett. 8, 767–781 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
74.Fourtune, L., Paz-Vinas, I., Loot, G., Prunier, J. G. & Blanchet, S. Lessons from the fish: a multi-species analysis reveals common processes underlying similar species-genetic diversity correlations. Freshw. Biol. 61, 1830–1845 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
75.Bertin, A. et al. Genetic variation of loci potentially under selection confounds species-genetic diversity correlations in a fragmented habitat. Mol. Ecol. 26, 431–443 (2017).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
76.Lawrence, E. R. & Fraser, D. J. Latitudinal biodiversity gradients at three levels: linking species richness, population richness and genetic diversity. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 29, 770–788 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
77.Schmidt, C., Dray, S. & Garroway, C. J. Genetic and species-level biodiversity patterns are linked by demography and ecological opportunity. bioRxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.06.03.132092 (2021).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
78.Hillebrand, H. On the generality of the latitudinal diversity gradient. Am. Nat. 163, 192–211 (2004).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
79.Pontarp, M. et al. The latitudinal diversity gradient: novel understanding through mechanistic eco-evolutionary models. Trends Ecol. Evol. 34, 211–223 (2019).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
80.Toews, D. P. L. & Brelsford, A. The biogeography of mitochondrial and nuclear discordance in animals. Mol. Ecol. 21, 3907–3930 (2012).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
81.Schmidt, C. & Garroway, C. J. The conservation utility of mitochondrial genetic diversity in macrogenetic research. Conserv. Genet. 22, 323–327 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
82.Gratton, P. et al. Which latitudinal gradients for genetic diversity? Trends Ecol. Evol. 32, 724–726 (2017). This response to Miraldo et al.20 identified a limitation of that article in that it did not account for the decay of genetic similarity with distance and represents the first critique of the downsides of the macrogenetic approach and the need for rigorous statistics.PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
83.Loveless, M. D. & Hamrick, J. L. Ecological determinants of genetic structure in plant populations. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 15, 65–95 (1984).Article 

Google Scholar 
84.Hu, Y. et al. Spatial patterns and conservation of genetic and phylogenetic diversity of wildlife in China. Sci. Adv. 7, eabd5725 (2021).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
85.Johnson, M. T. J. & Munshi-South, J. Evolution of life in urban environments. Science 358, eaam8327 (2017).PubMed 
Article 
CAS 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
86.Aguilar, R., Quesada, M., Ashworth, L., Herrerias-Diego, Y. & Lobo, J. Genetic consequences of habitat fragmentation in plant populations: susceptible signals in plant traits and methodological approaches. Mol. Ecol. 17, 5177–5188 (2008).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
87.Pinsky, M. L. & Palumbi, S. R. Meta-analysis reveals lower genetic diversity in overfished populations. Mol. Ecol. 23, 29–39 (2014).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
88.Leigh, D. M., Hendry, A. P., Vázquez-Domínguez, E. & Friesen, V. L. Estimated six per cent loss of genetic variation in wild populations since the industrial revolution. Evol. Appl. 12, 1505–1512 (2019). This study estimated the magnitude of the loss of genetic variation over a century-scale using microsatellite data from 91 species.PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
89.Schmidt, C. & Garroway, C. J. The population genetics of urban and rural amphibians in north America. Mol. Ecol. https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.16005 (2021).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
90.Bazin, E., Glémin, S. & Galtier, N. Population size does not influence mitochondrial genetic diversity in animals. Science 312, 570–572 (2006).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
91.Galtier, N., Nabholz, B., Glémin, S. & Hurst, G. D. D. Mitochondrial DNA as a marker of molecular diversity: a reappraisal. Mol. Ecol. 18, 4541–4550 (2009).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
92.Allio, R., Donega, S., Galtier, N. & Nabholz, B. Large variation in the ratio of mitochondrial to nuclear mutation rate across animals: implications for genetic diversity and the use of mitochondrial DNA as a molecular marker. Mol. Biol. Evol. 34, 2762–2772 (2017).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
93.Almeida-Rocha, J. M., Soares, L. A. S. S., Andrade, E. R., Gaiotto, F. A. & Cazetta, E. The impact of anthropogenic disturbances on the genetic diversity of terrestrial species: a global meta-analysis. Mol. Ecol. 29, 4812–4822 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
94.Landguth, E. L. et al. Quantifying the lag time to detect barriers in landscape genetics. Mol. Ecol. 19, 4179–4191 (2010).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
95.Paz-Vinas, I. et al. Macrogenetic studies must not ignore limitations of genetic markers and scale. Ecol. Lett. 24, 1282–1284 (2021).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
96.Crandall, E. D. et al. The molecular biogeography of the Indo-Pacific: testing hypotheses with multispecies genetic patterns. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 28, 943–960 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
97.Excoffier, L. & Foll, M. fastsimcoal: a continuous-time coalescent simulator of genomic diversity under arbitrarily complex evolutionary scenarios. Bioinformatics 27, 1332–1334 (2011).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
98.Guillaume, F. & Rougemont, J. Nemo: an evolutionary and population genetics programming framework. Bioinformatics 22, 2556–2557 (2006).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
99.Phillips, J. D., French, S. H., Hanner, R. H. & Gillis, D. J. HACSim: an R package to estimate intraspecific sample sizes for genetic diversity assessment using haplotype accumulation curves. PeerJ Comput. Sci. 6, e243 (2020).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
100.Gratton, P. et al. A world of sequences: can we use georeferenced nucleotide databases for a robust automated phylogeography? J. Biogeogr. 44, 475–486 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
101.Kimura, M. On the probability of fixation of mutant genes in a population. Genetics 47, 713–719 (1962).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
102.Baguette, M. & Van Dyck, H. Landscape connectivity and animal behavior: functional grain as a key determinant for dispersal. Landsc. Ecol. 22, 1117–1129 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
103.Crow, J. F. & Aoki, K. Group selection for a polygenic behavioral trait: estimating the degree of population subdivision. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 81, 6073–6077 (1984).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
104.Lanner, R. Why do trees live so long? Ageing Res. Rev. 1, 653–671 (2002).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
105.Nabholz, B., Mauffrey, J.-F., Bazin, E., Galtier, N. & Glemin, S. Determination of mitochondrial genetic diversity in mammals. Genetics 178, 351–361 (2008).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
106.Lasne, C., Heerwaarden, B., Sgrò, C. M. & Connallon, T. Quantifying the relative contributions of the X chromosome, autosomes, and mitochondrial genome to local adaptation. Evolution 73, 262–277 (2019).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
107.Phillips, J. D., Gillis, D. J. & Hanner, R. H. Incomplete estimates of genetic diversity within species: implications for DNA barcoding. Ecol. Evol. 9, 2996–3010 (2019).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
108.Humphries, P. & Winemiller, K. O. Historical impacts on river fauna, shifting baselines, and challenges for restoration. BioScience 59, 673–684 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
109.Stoffel, M. A. et al. Demographic histories and genetic diversity across pinnipeds are shaped by human exploitation, ecology and life-history. Nat. Commun. 9, 4836 (2018).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
110.Collier-Robinson, L., Rayne, A., Rupene, M., Thoms, C. & Steeves, T. Embedding indigenous principles in genomic research of culturally significant species: a conservation genomics case study. N. Z. J. Ecol. 43, 3389 (2019).
Google Scholar 
111.Des Roches, S., Pendleton, L. H., Shapiro, B. & Palkovacs, E. P. Conserving intraspecific variation for nature’s contributions to people. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 5, 574–582 (2021).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
112.Gonzalez, A. et al. Estimating local biodiversity change: a critique of papers claiming no net loss of local diversity. Ecology 97, 1949–1960 (2016).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
113.Pope, L. C., Liggins, L., Keyse, J., Carvalho, S. B. & Riginos, C. Not the time or the place: the missing spatio-temporal link in publicly available genetic data. Mol. Ecol. 24, 3802–3809 (2015).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
114.Yilmaz, P. et al. Minimum information about a marker gene sequence (MIMARKS) and minimum information about any (x) sequence (MIxS) specifications. Nat. Biotechnol. 29, 415–420 (2011).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
115.Sibbett, B., Rieseberg, L. H. & Narum, S. The genomic observatories metadatabase. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 20, 1453–1454 (2020).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
116.Eichenberg, D. et al. Widespread decline in Central European plant diversity across six decades. Glob. Change Biol. 27, 1097–1110 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
117.Cornwell, W. K., Pearse, W. D., Dalrymple, R. L. & Zanne, A. E. What we (don’t) know about global plant diversity. Ecography 42, 1819–1831 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
118.Li, X. et al. Plant DNA barcoding: from gene to genome. Biol. Rev. 90, 157–166 (2015).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
119.Vasquez-Gross, H. A. et al. CartograTree: connecting tree genomes, phenotypes and environment. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 13, 528–537 (2013).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
120.Lawrence, E. R. et al. Geo-referenced population-specific microsatellite data across American continents, the MacroPopGen Database. Sci. Data 6, 14 (2019). This paper reports a compilation of georeferenced vertebrate microsatellite data, summary statistics and meta-data across the Americas for 897 species and 9,090 genetically distinct populations.PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
121.Zellweger, F., De Frenne, P., Lenoir, J., Rocchini, D. & Coomes, D. Advances in microclimate ecology arising from remote sensing. Trends Ecol. Evol. 34, 327–341 (2019).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
122.Barber, P. H. et al. Advancing biodiversity research in developing countries: the need for changing paradigms. Bull. Mar. Sci. 90, 187–210 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
123.Bork, P. et al. Tara Oceans. Tara Oceans studies plankton at planetary scale. Introduction. Science 348, 873–873 (2015).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
124.Lotterhos, K. E. & Whitlock, M. C. The relative power of genome scans to detect local adaptation depends on sampling design and statistical method. Mol. Ecol. 24, 1031–1046 (2015).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
125.Hoban, S. et al. Genetic diversity targets and indicators in the CBD post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework must be improved. Biol. Conserv. 248, 108654 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
126.Holmes, M. W. et al. Natural history collections as windows on evolutionary processes. Mol. Ecol. 25, 864–881 (2016).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
127.Boukhdoud, L. et al. First DNA sequence reference library for mammals and plants of the Eastern Mediterranean Region. Genome 64, 39–49 (2021).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
128.Colella, J. P. et al. The Open-Specimen movement. BioScience 71, 405–414 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
129.Wright, S. Correlation and causation. J. Agric. Res. 20, 557–585 (1921).
Google Scholar 
130.Fourtune, L. et al. Inferring causalities in landscape genetics: an extension of Wright’s causal modeling to distance matrices. Am. Nat. 191, 491–508 (2018).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
131.Paz-Vinas, I., Loot, G., Stevens, V. M. & Blanchet, S. Evolutionary processes driving spatial patterns of intraspecific genetic diversity in river ecosystems. Mol. Ecol. 24, 4586–4604 (2015).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
132.Beaumont, M. A., Zhang, W. & Balding, D. J. Approximate Bayesian computation in population genetics. Genetics 162, 2025–2035 (2002).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
133.Breiman, L. Random forests. Mach. Learn. 45, 5–32 (2001).Article 

Google Scholar 
134.Proença, V. et al. Global biodiversity monitoring: From data sources to Essential Biodiversity Variables. Biol. Conserv. 213, 256–263 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
135.Ve˅trovský, T. et al. A meta-analysis of global fungal distribution reveals climate-driven patterns. Nat. Commun. 10, 5142 (2019).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
136.Hanson, J. O. et al. Conservation planning for adaptive and neutral evolutionary processes. J. Appl. Ecol. 57, 2159–2169 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
137.Xuereb, A., D’Aloia, C. C., Andrello, M., Bernatchez, L. & Fortin, M. Incorporating putatively neutral and adaptive genomic data into marine conservation planning. Conserv. Biol. 35, 909–920 (2021).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
138.Carvalho, S. B., Torres, J., Tarroso, P. & Velo-Antón, G. Genes on the edge: a framework to detect genetic diversity imperiled by climate change. Glob. Change Biol. 25, 4034–4047 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
139.Adams, W. M. & Sandbrook, C. Conservation, evidence and policy. Oryx 47, 329–335 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
140.Laikre, L. et al. Post-2020 goals overlook genetic diversity. Science 367, 1083.2–1085 (2020).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
141.Thomson, A. I. et al. Charting a course for genetic diversity in the UN Decade of Ocean Science. Evol. Appl. 14, 1497–1518 (2021).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
142.Hoban, S. M. et al. Bringing genetic diversity to the forefront of conservation policy and management. Conserv. Genet. Resour. 5, 593–598 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
143.Carroll, S. R. et al. The CARE principles for indigenous data governance. Data Sci. J. 19, 43 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
144.Fargeot, L. et al. Patterns of epigenetic diversity in two sympatric fish species: genetic vs. environmental determinants. Genes 12, 107 (2021).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
145.Gaggiotti, O. E. et al. Diversity from genes to ecosystems: a unifying framework to study variation across biological metrics and scales. Evol. Appl. 11, 1176–1193 (2018).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
146.Waples, R. S., Antao, T. & Luikart, G. Effects of overlapping generations on linkage disequilibrium estimates of effective population size. Genetics 197, 769–780 (2014).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
147.Waples, R. S. & Yokota, M. Temporal estimates of effective population size in species with overlapping generations. Genetics 175, 219–233 (2007).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
148.Antao, T., Pérez-Figueroa, A. & Luikart, G. Early detection of population declines: high power of genetic monitoring using effective population size estimators. Evol. Appl. 4, 144–154 (2011).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
149.Cornuet, J. M. & Luikart, G. Description and power analysis of two tests for detecting recent population bottlenecks from allele frequency data. Genetics 144, 2001–2014 (1996).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
150.Phillips, J. D., Gwiazdowski, R. A., Ashlock, D. & Hanner, R. An exploration of sufficient sampling effort to describe intraspecific DNA barcode haplotype diversity: examples from the ray-finned fishes (Chordata: Actinopterygii). DNA Barcodes 3, 66–73 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
151.Tajima, F. The effect of change in population size on DNA polymorphism. Genetics 123, 597–601 (1989).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
152.Jordan, R., Breed, M. F., Prober, S. M., Miller, A. D. & Hoffmann, A. A. How well do revegetation plantings capture genetic diversity? Biol. Lett. 15, 20190460 (2019).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
153.Holderegger, R. & Di Giulio, M. The genetic effects of roads: a review of empirical evidence. Basic. Appl. Ecol. 11, 522–531 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
154.Hale, M. L., Burg, T. M. & Steeves, T. E. Sampling for microsatellite-based population genetic studies: 25 to 30 individuals per population is enough to accurately estimate allele frequencies. PLoS One 7, e45170 (2012).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
155.Jackson, T. M., Roegner, G. C. & O’Malley, K. G. Evidence for interannual variation in genetic structure of Dungeness crab (Cancer magister) along the California Current System. Mol. Ecol. 27, 352–368 (2018).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
156.Hoban, S. et al. Comparative evaluation of potential indicators and temporal sampling protocols for monitoring genetic erosion. Evol. Appl. 7, 984–998 (2014).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
157.Anderson, C. N. K., Ramakrishnan, U., Chan, Y. L. & Hadly, E. A. Serial SimCoal: a population genetics model for data from multiple populations and points in time. Bioinformatics 21, 1733–1734 (2005).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
158.Hortal, J. et al. Seven shortfalls that beset large-scale knowledge of biodiversity. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 46, 523–549 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
159.Elbrecht, V., Vamos, E. E., Steinke, D. & Leese, F. Estimating intraspecific genetic diversity from community DNA metabarcoding data. PeerJ 6, e4644 (2018).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
160.Shum, P. & Palumbi, S. R. Testing small-scale ecological gradients and intraspecific differentiation for hundreds of kelp forest species using haplotypes from metabarcoding. Mol. Ecol. https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.15851 (2021).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
161.Yamahara, K. M. et al. In situ autonomous acquisition and preservation of marine environmental DNA using an autonomous underwater vehicle. Front. Mar. Sci. 6, 373 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
162.Breed, M. F. et al. Mating patterns and pollinator mobility are critical traits in forest fragmentation genetics. Heredity 115, 108–114 (2015).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
163.Hoban, S., Gaggiotti, O. & Bertorelle, G. Sample Planning Optimization Tool for conservation and population Genetics (SPOTG): a software for choosing the appropriate number of markers and samples. Methods Ecol. Evol. 4, 299–303 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
164.Peck, S. L. Simulation as experiment: a philosophical reassessment for biological modeling. Trends Ecol. Evol. 19, 530–534 (2004).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
165.Reid, B. N., Naro-Maciel, E., Hahn, A. T., FitzSimmons, N. N. & Gehara, M. Geography best explains global patterns of genetic diversity and postglacial co-expansion in marine turtles. Mol. Ecol. 28, 3358–3370 (2019).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
166.Kardos, M., Luikart, G. & Allendorf, F. W. Measuring individual inbreeding in the age of genomics: marker-based measures are better than pedigrees. Heredity 115, 63–72 (2015).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
167.Willing, E.-M., Dreyer, C. & van Oosterhout, C. Estimates of genetic differentiation measured by FST do not necessarily require large sample sizes when using many SNP markers. PLoS One 7, e42649 (2012).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
168.Shafer, A. B. A. et al. Bioinformatic processing of RAD-seq data dramatically impacts downstream population genetic inference. Methods Ecol. Evol. 8, 907–917 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
169.Cariou, M., Duret, L. & Charlat, S. How and how much does RAD-seq bias genetic diversity estimates? BMC Evol. Biol. 16, 240 (2016).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
170.De-Kayne, R. et al. Sequencing platform shifts provide opportunities but pose challenges for combining genomic data sets. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 21, 653–660 (2021).PubMed 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
171.Leigh, D. M., Lischer, H. E. L., Grossen, C. & Keller, L. F. Batch effects in a multiyear sequencing study: false biological trends due to changes in read lengths. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 18, 778–788 (2018).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
172.Linck, E. & Battey, C. J. Minor allele frequency thresholds strongly affect population structure inference with genomic data sets. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 19, 639–647 (2019).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
173.Benestan, L. M. et al. Conservation genomics of natural and managed populations: building a conceptual and practical framework. Mol. Ecol. 25, 2967–2977 (2016).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
174.Feng, S. et al. Dense sampling of bird diversity increases power of comparative genomics. Nature 587, 252–257 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
175.Brandies, P., Peel, E., Hogg, C. J. & Belov, K. The value of reference genomes in the conservation of threatened species. Genes 10, 846 (2019).CAS 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar  More

1.Smith, P. et al. The changing faces of soil organic matter research. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 69, 23–30. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejss.12500 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
2.Kögel-Knabner, I. The macromolecular organic composition of plant and microbial residues as inputs to soil organic matter. Soil Biol. Biochem. 34, 139–162 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
3.Schmidt, M. W. I. et al. Persistence of soil organic matter as an ecosystem property. Nature 478, 49–56. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature10386 (2011).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
4.Lehmann, J. & Kleber, M. The contentious nature of soil organic matter. Nature 528, 60–68. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature16069 (2015).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
5.Lehmann, J. et al. Persistence of soil organic carbon caused by functional complexity. Nat. Geosci. 13, 529–534. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-020-0612-3 (2020).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
6.Dong, L. et al. Effect of grazing exclusion and rotational grazing on labile soil organic carbon in north China. Eur. J. Soil Sci. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejss.12952 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
7.Leifeld, J. & Kogel-Knabner, I. Soil organic matter fractions as early indicators for carbon stock changes under different land-use?. Geoderma 124, 143–155 (2005).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
8.Poeplau, C. & Don, A. Sensitivity of soil organic carbon stocks and fractions to different land-use changes across Europe. Geoderma 192, 189–201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2012.08.003 (2013).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
9.Besnard, E., Chenu, C., Balesdent, J., Puget, P. & Arrouays, D. Fate of particulate organic matter in soil aggregates during cultivation. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 47, 495–503 (1996).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
10.von Lützow, M. et al. Stabilization of organic matter in temperate soils: mechanisms and their relevance under different soil conditions—a review. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 57, 426–445. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2389.2006.00809.x (2006).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
11.Peng, X. H., Zhu, Q. H., Zhang, Z. B. & Hallett, P. D. Combined turnover of carbon and soil aggregates using rare earth oxides and isotopically labelled carbon as tracers. Soil Biol. Biochem. 109, 81–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2017.02.002 (2017).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
12.Dynarski, K. A., Bossio, D. A. & Scow, K. M. Dynamic stability of soil carbon: reassessing the “permanence” of soil carbon sequestration. Front. Environ. Sci. 8, 1. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2020.514701 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
13.Basile-Doelsch, I., Balesdent, J. & Pellerin, S. Reviews and syntheses: The mechanisms underlying carbon storage in soil. Biogeosci. Discuss. https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-2020-49 (2020).14.Poeplau, C. et al. Isolating organic carbon fractions with varying turnover rates in temperate agricultural soils—a comprehensive method comparison. Soil Biol. Biochem. 125, 10–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2018.06.025 (2018).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
15.Rumpel, C. & Kögel-Knabner, I. Deep soil organic matter-a key but poorly understood component of terrestrial C cycle. Plant Soil 338, 143–158. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-010-0391-5 (2011).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
16.Steffens, M., Kölbl, A., Schörk, E., Gschrey, B. & Kögel-Knabner, I. Distribution of soil organic matter between fractions and aggregate size classes in grazed semiarid steppe soil profiles. Plant Soil 338, 63–81. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-010-0594-9 (2011).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
17.Soriano-Disla, J. M., Janik, L. J., Rossel, R. A. V., Macdonald, L. M. & McLaughlin, M. J. The performance of visible, near-, and mid-infrared reflectance spectroscopy for prediction of soil physical, chemical, and biological properties. Appl. Spectrosc. Rev. 49, 139–186. https://doi.org/10.1080/05704928.2013.811081 (2014).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
18.Stenberg, B., Rossel, R. A. V., Mouazen, A. M. & Wetterlind, J. Visible and near infrared spectroscopy in soil science. Adv. Agron. 107(107), 163–215. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0065-2113(10)07005-7 (2010).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
19.Mouazen, A. M., Steffens, M. & Borisover, M. Reflectance and fluorescence spectroscopy in soil science-Current and future research and developments. Soil Tillage Res. 155, 448–449 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
20.Viscarra Rossel, R. A. & Bouma, J. Soil sensing: A new paradigm for agriculture. Agric. Syst. 148, 71–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2016.07.001 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
21.Nocita, M. et al.. Soil spectroscopy: An alternative to wet chemistry for soil monitoring. Adv. Agron. 132, 139–159 (2015)Article 

Google Scholar 
22.Gholizadeh, A., Boruvka, L., Saberioon, M. & Vasat, R. Visible, near-infrared, and mid-infrared spectroscopy applications for soil assessment with emphasis on soil organic matter content and quality: state-of-the-art and key issues. Appl. Spectrosc. 67, 1349–1362. https://doi.org/10.1366/13-07288 (2013).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
23.Hermansen, C. et al. Complete soil texture is accurately predicted by visible near-infrared spectroscopy. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 81, 758–769. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2017.02.0066 (2017).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
24.Zimmermann, M., Leifeld, J. & Fuhrer, J. Quantifying soil organic carbon fractions by infrared-spectroscopy. Soil Biol. Biochem. 39, 224–231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2006.07.010 (2007).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
25.Madhavan, D. B. et al. Rapid prediction of particulate, humus and resistant fractions of soil organic carbon in reforested lands using infrared spectroscopy. J. Environ. Manage. 193, 290–299. https://doi.org/10.1016/jjenvman.2017.02.013 (2017).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
26.St. Luce, M. et al. Rapid determination of soil organic matter quality indicators using visible near infrared reflectance spectroscopy. Geoderma 232–234, 449–458. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2014.05.023 (2014).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
27.Terhoeven-Urselmans, T., Michel, K., Helfrich, M., Flessa, H. & Ludwig, B. Near-infrared spectroscopy can predict the composition of organic matter in soil and litter. J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci. 169, 168–174. https://doi.org/10.1002/jpln.200521712 (2006).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
28.Margenot, A., O’Neill, T., Sommer, R. & Akella, V. Predicting soil permanganate oxidizable carbon (PDXC) by coupling DRIFT spectroscopy and artificial neural networks (ANN). Comput. Electron. Agric. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2019.105098 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
29.Fang, Q. et al. Visible and near-infrared reflectance spectroscopy for investigating soil mineralogy: a review. J. Spectrosc. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/3168974 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
30.Shi, P., Castaldi, F., van Wesemael, B. & van Oost, K. Vis-NIR spectroscopic assessment of soil aggregate stability and aggregate size distribution in the Belgian Loam Belt. Geoderma https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2019.113958 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
31.Canasveras, J. C., Barron, V., del Campillo, M. C., Torrent, J. & Gomez, J. A. Estimation of aggregate stability indices in Mediterranean soils by diffuse reflectance spectroscopy. Geoderma 158, 78–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2009.09.004 (2010).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
32.Hermansen, C. et al. Visible-near-infrared spectroscopy can predict the clay/organic carbon and mineral fines/organic carbon ratios. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 80, 1486–1495. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2016.05.0159 (2016).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
33.Jaconi, A., Don, A. & Freibauer, A. Prediction of soil organic carbon at the country scale: stratification strategies for near-infrared data. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 68, 919–929. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejss.12485 (2017).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
34.Jaconi, A., Vos, C. & Don, A. Near infrared spectroscopy as an easy and precise method to estimate soil texture. Geoderma 337, 906–913. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2018.10.038 (2019).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
35.Riedel, F., Denk, M., Muller, I., Barth, N. & Glasser, C. Prediction of soil parameters using the spectral range between 350 and 15,000 nm: A case study based on the Permanent Soil Monitoring Program in Saxony Germany. Geoderma 315, 188–198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2017.11.027 (2018).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
36.Clairotte, M. et al. National calibration of soil organic carbon concentration using diffuse infrared reflectance spectroscopy. Geoderma 276, 41–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2016.04.021 (2016).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
37.Orgiazzi, A., Ballabio, C., Panagos, P., Jones, A. & Fernandez-Ugalde, O. LUCAS soil, the largest expandable soil dataset for Europe: a review. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 69, 140–153. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejss.12499 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
38.Stevens, A., Nocita, M., Toth, G., Montanarella, L. & van Wesemael, B. Prediction of soil organic carbon at the european scale by visible and near infrared reflectance spectroscopy. PLoS ONE 8, 1. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0066409 (2013).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
39.Nocita, M. et al. Prediction of soil organic carbon content by diffuse reflectance spectroscopy using a local partial least square regression approach. Soil Biol. Biochem. 68, 337–347. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2013.10.022 (2014).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
40.Viscarra Rossel, R. A. & Hicks, W. S. Soil organic carbon and its fractions estimated by visible-near infrared transfer functions. Europ. J. Soil Sci. 66, 438–450. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejss.12237 (2015).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
41.Steffens, M. & Buddenbaum, H. Laboratory imaging spectroscopy of a stagnic Luvisol profile – High resolution soil characterisation, classification and mapping of elemental concentrations. Geoderma 195–196, 122–132 (2013).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
42.Steffens, M., Kohlpaintner, M. & Buddenbaum, H. Fine spatial resolution mapping of soil organic matter quality in a Histosol profile. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 65, 827–839. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejss.12182 (2014).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
43.Hobley, E., Steffens, M., Bauke, S. L. & Kogel-Knabner, I. Hotspots of soil organic carbon storage revealed by laboratory hyperspectral imaging. Sci. Rep. 8, 1. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-31776-w (2018).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
44.Lucas, M., Pihlap, E., Steffens, M., Vetterlein, D. & Kogel-Knabner, I. Combination of imaging infrared spectroscopy and x-ray computed microtomography for the investigation of bio- and physicochemical processes in structured soils. Front. Environ. Sci. 8, 1. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2020.00042 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
45.Mueller, C. W., Steffens, M. & Buddenbaum, H. Permafrost soil complexity evaluated by laboratory imaging Vis-NIR spectroscopy. Eur. J. Soil Sci. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejss.12927 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
46.Schreiner, S., Buddenbaum, H., Emmerling, C. & Steffens, M. VNIR/SWIR laboratory imaging spectroscopy for wall-to-wall mapping of elemental concentrations in soil cores. Photogrammetrie Fernerkundung Geoinformation https://doi.org/10.1127/pfg/2015/0279 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
47.Askari, M. S., O’Rourke, S. M. & Holden, N. M. A comparison of point and imaging visible-near infrared spectroscopy for determining soil organic carbon. J. Near Infrared Spectrosc. 26, 133–146. https://doi.org/10.1177/0967033518766668 (2018).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
48.O’Rourke, S. M. & Holden, N. M. Determination of soil organic matter and carbon fractions in forest top soils using spectral data acquired from visible-near infrared hyperspectral images. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 76, 586–596. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2011.0053 (2012).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
49.Buddenbaum, H. & Steffens, M. Laboratory imaging spectroscopy of soil profiles. J. Spectral Imag. 2, 1. https://doi.org/10.1255/jsi.2011.a2 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
50.Buddenbaum, H. & Steffens, M. Mapping the distribution of chemical properties in soil profiles using laboratory imaging spectroscopy SVM and PLS regression. EARSeL eProc. 11, 25–32 (2012).
Google Scholar 
51.Poeplau, C. et al. Stocks of organic carbon in German agricultural soils-Key results of the first comprehensive inventory. J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci. 183, 665–681. https://doi.org/10.1002/jpln.202000113 (2020).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
52.Viscarra Rossel, R. A., Lobsey, C. R., Sharman, C., Flick, P. & McLachlan, G. Novel proximal sensing for monitoring soil organic C stocks and condition. Environ. Sci. Technol. 51, 5630–5641. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.7b00889 (2017).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
53.IUSS Working Group WRB. World reference base for soil resources 2006. Vol. 103 (FAO, 2006).
Google Scholar 
54.Steffens, M., Kölbl, A., Totsche, K. U. & Kögel-Knabner, I. Grazing effects on soil chemical and physical properties in a semiarid steppe of Inner Mongolia (P.R. China). Geoderma 143, 63–72 (2008).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
55.Hoffmann, C. et al. Effects of grazing and climate variability on grassland ecosystem functions in Inner Mongolia: Synthesis of a 6-year grazing experiment. J. Arid Environ. 135, 50–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaridenv.2016.08.003 (2016).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
56.FAO. Guidelines for soil description. 4th edition edn, (FAO, 2006).
Google Scholar 
57.Lenhard, K., Baumgartner, A. & Schwarzmaier, T. Independent laboratory characterization of NEO HySpex imaging spectrometers VNIR-1600 and SWIR-320m-e. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. 53, 1828–1841. https://doi.org/10.1109/TGRS.2014.2349737 (2015).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
58.Peddle, D. R., White, H. P., Soffer, R. J., Miller, J. R. & LeDrew, E. F. Reflectance processing of remote sensing spectroradiometer data. Comput. Geosci. 27, 203–213 (2001).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
59.Rogass, C. et al. Translational imaging spectroscopy for proximal sensing. Sensors 17, 1857 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
60.Steffens, M., Kölbl, A. & Kögel-Knabner, I. Alteration of soil organic matter pools and aggregation in semi-arid steppe topsoils as driven by organic matter input. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 60, 198–212. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2389.2008.01104.x (2009).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
61.Golchin, A., Oades, J. M., Skjemstad, J. O. & Clarke, P. Soil-structure and carbon cycling. Aust. J. Soil Res. 32, 1043–1068 (1994).Article 

Google Scholar 
62.Christensen, B. T. Physical fractionation of soil and structural and functional complexity in organic matter turnover. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 52, 345–353 (2001).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
63.Schmidt, M. W. I., Rumpel, C. & Kögel-Knabner, I. Evaluation of an ultrasonic dispersion procedure to isolate primary organomineral complexes from soils. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 50, 87–94 (1999).Article 

Google Scholar 
64.Steffens, M. et al. Spatial variability of topsoils and vegetation in a grazed steppe ecosystem in Inner Mongolia (PR China). J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci. 172, 78–90. https://doi.org/10.1002/jpln.200700309 (2009).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
65.Six, J., Gregorich, E. & Koegel-Knabner, I. Landmark Papers: No. 1. Tisdall, J. M. & Oades, J. M. 1982. Organic matter and water-stable aggregates in soils. Journal of Soil Science, 33, 141–163 Commentary on the impact of the impact of Tisdall & Oades (1982): by J. Six, E. G. Gregorich & I. Kogel-Knabner. European Journal of Soil Science 63, 3–7 (2012).66.Six, J., Bossuyt, H., Degryze, S. & Denef, K. A history of research on the link between (micro)aggregates, soil biota, and soil organic matter dynamics. Soil Tillage Res. 79, 7–31 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
67.Wiesmeier, M. et al. Aggregate stability and physical protection of soil organic carbon in semi-arid steppe soils. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 63, 22–31. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2389.2011.01418.x (2012).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
68.McSherry, M. E. & Ritchie, M. E. Effects of grazing on grassland soil carbon: a global review. Glob. Change Biol. 19, 1347–1357. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12144 (2013).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
69.Viscarra Rossel, R. A. & Behrens, T. Using data mining to model and interpret soil diffuse reflectance spectra. Geoderma 158, 46–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2009.12.025 (2010).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
70.Ben-Dor, E., Inbar, Y. & Chen, Y. The reflectance spectra of organic matter in the visible near-infrared and short wave infrared region (400–2500 nm) during a controlled decomposition process. Remote Sens. Environ. 61, 1–15 (1997).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
71.Delegido, J., Verrelst, J., Rivera, J. P., Ruiz-Verdu, A. & Moreno, J. Brown and green LAI mapping through spectral indices. Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinf. 35, 350–358. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jag.2014.10.001 (2015).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
72.Viscarra Rossel, R. A., McGlynn, R. N. & McBratney, A. B. Determing the composition of mineral-organic mixes using UV-vis-NIR diffuse reflectance spectroscopy. Geoderma 137, 70–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2006.07.004 (2006).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
73.Ben-Dor, E. et al. Imaging spectrometry for soil applications. Adv. Agronomy 97, 321. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0065-2113(07)00008-9 (2008).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar  More

1.Benincà, E., Ballantine, B., Ellner, S.P. & Huisman, J. Species fluctuations sustained by a cyclic succession at the edge of chaos. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 112, 6389–6394 (2015).2.Lande, R. et al. Stochastic Population Dynamics in Ecology and Conservation (Oxford University Press, 2003).3.Bonsall, M. B. & Hastings, A. Demographic and environmental stochasticity in predator-prey metapopulation dynamics. J. Anim. Ecol. 73, 1043–1055 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
4.Nisbet, R. M. & Gurney, W. Modelling Fluctuating Populations: reprint of first Edition (1982) (Blackburn Press, 2003).5.Hening, A. & Nguyen, D. H. Stochastic Lotka–Volterra food chains. J. Math. Biol. 77(1), 135–163 (2018).MathSciNet 
Article 

Google Scholar 
6.Khasminskii, R. et al. Long term behavior of solutions of the Lotka–Volterra system under small random perturbations. Ann. Appl. Probab. 11(3), 952–963 (2001).MathSciNet 
Article 

Google Scholar 
7.Huang, W., Hauert, C. & Traulsen, A. Stochastic game dynamics under demographic fluctuations. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 112(29), 9064–9069 (2015).8.Suvinthra, M. & Balachandran, K. Large deviations for the stochastic predator-prey model with nonlinear functional response. J. Appl. Probab. 54(2), 507 (2017).MathSciNet 
Article 

Google Scholar 
9.Zou, X. & Wang, K. Optimal harvesting for a stochastic Lotka–Volterra predator-prey system with jumps and nonselective harvesting hypothesis. Optim. Control Appl. Methods 37(4), 641–662 (2016).MathSciNet 
Article 

Google Scholar 
10.Larsen, A. E. Modeling multiple nonconsumptive effects in simple food webs: a modified Lotka–Volterra approach. Behav. Ecol. 23(5), 1115–1125 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
11.Singh, A. Stochastic dynamics of consumer-resource interactions. bioRxiv (2021).12.Bashkirtseva, I., Ryashko, L. & Tsvetkov, I. Analysis of stochastic phenomena in ricker-type population model with delay. In AIP Conference Proceedings, vol. 1895, p. 050003 (2017).13.Halley, J. M. & Iwasa, Y. Extinction rate of a population under both demographic and environmental stochasticity. Theor. Popul. Biol. 53, 1–15 (1998).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
14.Hassell, M. P. (Oxford University Press, 2000).15.Gurney, W. S. C. & Nisbet, R. M. Ecological Dynamics (Oxford University Press, 1998).16.Murdoch, W. W., Briggs, C. J. & Nisbet, R. M. Consumer-Resouse Dynamics (Princeton University Press, 2003).17.Kakehashi, N., Suzuki, Y. & Iwasa, Y. Niche overlap of parasitoids in host-parasitoid systems: its consequence to single versus multiple introduction controversy in biological control. J. Appl. Ecol. 21, 115–131 (1984).Article 

Google Scholar 
18.May, R. M. & Hassell, M. P. The dynamics of multiparasitoid-host interactions. Am. Nat. 117(3), 234–261 (1981).MathSciNet 
Article 

Google Scholar 
19.Hackett-Jones, E., Cobbold, C. & White, A. Coexistence of multiple parasitoids on a single host due to differences in parasitoid phenology. Theor. Ecol. 2(1), 19–31 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
20.van Velzen, E., Pérez-Vila, S. & Etienne, R. S. The role of within-host competition for coexistence in multiparasitoid-host systems. Am. Nat. 187(1), 48–59 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
21.Nicholson, A. & Bailey, V. A. The balance of animal populations. Part 1. Proc. Zool. Soc. Lond. 3, 551–598 (1935).Article 

Google Scholar 
22.Singh, A., Murdoch, W. W. & Nisbet, R. M. Skewed attacks, stability, and host suppression. Ecology 90(6), 1679–1686 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
23.Bešo, E., Kalabušić, S., Mujić, N. & Pilav, E. Stability of a certain class of a host-parasitoid models with a spatial refuge effect. J. Biol. Dyn. 14(1), 1–31 (2020).MathSciNet 
Article 

Google Scholar 
24.Taylor, A. D. Heterogeneity in host-parasitoid interactions: ‘aggregation of risk’ and the (cv^2 >1) rule. Trends Ecol. Evolu. 8, 400–405 (1993).25.Hassell, M. P., May, R. M., Pacala, S. W. & Chesson, P. L. The persistence of host-parasitoid associations in patchy environments. I. A general criterion. Am. Nat. 138, 568–583 (1991).Article 

Google Scholar 
26.Pacala, S. W. & Hassell, M. P. The persistence of host- parasitoid associations in patchy environments. II. Evaluation of field data. Am. Nat. 138, 584–605 (1991).Article 

Google Scholar 
27.Bernstein, C. Density dependence and the stability of host-parasitoid systems. Oikos 47, 176–180 (1986).Article 

Google Scholar 
28.Free, C., Beddington, J. & Lawton, J. On the inadequacy of simple models of mutual interference for parasitism and predation. J. Anim. Ecol. 46, 543–554 (1977).Article 

Google Scholar 
29.Rogers, D. & Hassell, M. General models for insect parasite and predator searching behaviour: interference. J. Anim. Ecol. 43, 239–253 (1974).Article 

Google Scholar 
30.Reeve, J. D., Cronin, J. T. & Strong, D. R. Parasitoid aggregation and the stabilization of a salt marsh host- parasitoid system. Ecology 75, 288–295 (1994).Article 

Google Scholar 
31.Rohani, P., Godfray, H. C. J. & Hassell, M. P. Aggregation and the dynamics of host-parasitoid systems: A discrete-generation model with within-generation redistribution. Am. Nat. 144(3), 491–509 (1994).Article 

Google Scholar 
32.May, R. M. Host-parasitoid systems in patchy environments: A phenomenological model. J. Anim. Ecol. 47, 833–844 (1978).Article 

Google Scholar 
33.Singh, A. & Nisbet, R. M. Semi-discrete host-parasitoid models. J. Theor. Biol. 247(4), 733–742 (2007).ADS 
MathSciNet 
Article 

Google Scholar 
34.Singh, A. Population dynamics of multi-host communities attacked by a common parasitoid, bioRxiv (2021).35.Singh, A. & Emerick, B. Hybrid systems framework for modeling host-parasitoid population dynamics. In 2020 59th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC), 4628–4633 (2020).36.Lane, S. D., St, C. M. Mary, & Getz, W. M. Coexistence of attack-limited parasitoids sequentially exploiting the same resource and its implications for biological control. Ann. Zool. Fenn. 43, 17–34 (2006).
Google Scholar 
37.Pedersen, B. S. & Mills, N. J. Single vs. multiple introduction in biological control: the roles of parasitoid efficiency, antagonism and niche overlap. J. Appl. Ecol. 41(5), 973–984 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
38.Abram, P. K., Brodeur, J., Burte, V. & Boivin, G. Parasitoid-induced host egg abortion; an underappreciated component of biological control services provided by egg parasitoids. Biol. Control 98, 52–60 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
39.Jervis, M. A., Hawkin, B. A. & Kidd, N. A. C. The usefulness of destructive host-feeding parasitoids in classical biological control: Theory and observation conflict. Ecol. Entomol. 21(1), 41–46 (1996).Article 

Google Scholar 
40.Okuyama, T. Density-dependent distribution of parasitism risk among underground hosts. Bull. Entomol. Res. 109(4), 528–533 (2019).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
41.Cobbold, C. A., Roland, J. & Lewis, M. A. The impact of parasitoid emergence time on host-parastioid population dynamics. Theor. Popul. Biol. 75(2), 201–215 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
42.Liere, H., Jackson, D. & Vandermeer, J. Ecological complexity in a coffee agroecosystem: Spatial heterogeneity, popoulation persistence and biological control. PLoS One 7(9), e45508 (2012).43.Zoroa, N., Lesigne, E., Fernandez-Saez, M.J., Zoroa, P. & Casas, J. The coupon collector urn model with unequal probabilities in ecology and evolution, J. R. Soc. Interface 14, 20160643 (2017).44.Singh, A. & Emerick, B. Generalized stability conditions for host-parasitoid population dynamics: Implications for biological control. Ecol. Model. 456, 109656 (2021).45.Ledder, G. Mathematics for the Life Sciences: Calculus, Modeling, Probability, and Dynamical Systems (Springer Science & Business Media, 2013).46.Elaydi, S. An Introduction to Difference Equations (Springer, 1996).47.Gajic, Z. & Qureshi, M. T. J. Lyapunov matrix equation in system stability and control. (Courier Corporation, 2008).48.Singh, A. & Nisbet, R. M. Variation in risk in single-species discrete-time models. Math. Biosci. Eng. 5, 859–875 (2008).MathSciNet 
Article 

Google Scholar 
49.Emerick, B. K. & Singh, A. The effects of host-feeding on stability of discrete-time host-parasitoid population dynamic models. Math. Biosci. 272, 54–63 (2016).MathSciNet 
Article 

Google Scholar 
50.Pachepsky, E., Nisbet, R. M. & Murdoch, W. W. Between discrete and continuous: Consumer-resource dynamics with synchronized reproduction. Ecology 89(1), 280–288 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
51.Emerick, B. K., Singh, A & Chhetri, S. R. Global redistribution and local migration in semi-discrete host-parasitoid population dynamic models. Math. Biosci. 327, 108409 (2020).52.Rogers, D. J. Random searching and incest population models. J. Anim. Ecol. 41, 369–383 (1972).Article 

Google Scholar 
53.Hassell, M. P. & Comins, H. N. Sigmoid functional responses and population stability. Theor. Popul. Biol. 14, 62–66 (1978).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
54.Fernández-arhex, V. & Corley, J. C. The functional response of parasitoids and its implications for biological control. Biocontrol Sci. Technol. 13(4), 403–413 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
55.Okuyama, T. Dilution effects enhance variation in parasitism risk among hosts and stabilize host-parasitoid population dynamics. Ecol. Model. 441, 109425 (2021). More

1.van der Plas, F. Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning in naturally assembled communities. Biol. Rev. 94, 1220–1245 (2019).PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
2.Lefcheck, J. S. et al. Biodiversity enhances ecosystem multifunctionality across trophic levels and habitats. Nat. Commun. 6, 6936 (2015).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
3.Fanin, N. et al. Consistent effects of biodiversity loss on multifunctionality across contrasting ecosystems. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2, 269–278 (2018).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
4.Isbell, F. et al. Linking the influence and dependence of people on biodiversity across scales. Nature 546, 65–72 (2017).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
5.Sánchez-Bayo, F. & Wyckhuys, K. A. G. Worldwide decline of the entomofauna: A review of its drivers. Biol. Conserv. 232, 8–27 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
6.IPBES. Summary for policymakers of the global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. (IPBES secretariat, Bonn, Germany, 2019).7.Smith, H. F. & Sullivan, C. A. Ecosystem services within agricultural landscapes—farmers’ perceptions. Ecol. Econ. 98, 72–80 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
8.Barnes, A. D. et al. Biodiversity enhances the multitrophic control of arthropod herbivory. Sci. Adv. 6, eabb6603 (2020).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
9.Dainese, M. et al. A global synthesis reveals biodiversity-mediated benefits for crop production. Sci. Adv. 5, eaax0121 (2019).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
10.Costanza, R. et al. The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387, 253–260 (1997).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
11.Oliver, T. H. et al. Declining resilience of ecosystem functions under biodiversity loss. Nat. Commun. 6, 10122 (2015).PubMed 
Article 
CAS 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
12.Naranjo, S. E., Ellsworth, P. C. & Frisvold, G. B. Economic value of biological control in integrated pest management of managed plant systems. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 60, 621–645 (2015).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
13.Frishkoff, L. O. et al. Loss of avian phylogenetic diversity in neotropical agricultural systems. Science 345, 1343–1346 (2014).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
14.Mendenhall, C. D., Karp, D. S., Meyer, C. F. J., Hadly, E. A. & Daily, G. C. Predicting biodiversity change and averting collapse in agricultural landscapes. Nature 509, 213–217 (2014).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
15.Karp, D. S. et al. Crop pests and predators exhibit inconsistent responses to surrounding landscape composition. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115, E7863–E7870 (2018).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
16.Tamburini, G. et al. Agricultural diversification promotes multiple ecosystem services without compromising yield. Sci. Adv. 6, eaba1715 (2020).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
17.Redlich, S., Martin, E. A. & Steffan-Dewenter, I. Landscape-level crop diversity benefits biological pest control. J. Appl. Ecol. 55, 2419–2428 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
18.Muneret, L. et al. Evidence that organic farming promotes pest control. Nat. Sustain. 1, 361–368 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
19.Roubos, C. R., Rodriguez-Saona, C. & Isaacs, R. Mitigating the effects of insecticides on arthropod biological control at field and landscape scales. Biol. Control 75, 28–38 (2014).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
20.Roschewitz, I., Hucker, M., Tscharntke, T. & Thies, C. The influence of landscape context and farming practices on parasitism of cereal aphids. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 108, 218–227 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
21.Frago, E., Pujadevillar, J., Guara, M. & Selfa, J. Hyperparasitism and seasonal patterns of parasitism as potential causes of low top-down control in Euproctis chrysorrhoea L. (Lymantriidae). Biol. Control 60, 123–131 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
22.Rosenheim, J. A., Kaya, H. K., Ehler, L. E., Marois, J. J. & Jaffee, B. A. Intraguild predation among biological-control agents: theory and evidence. Biol. Control 5, 303–335 (1995).Article 

Google Scholar 
23.Brobyn, P. J., Clark, S. J. & Wilding, N. The effect of fungus infection of Metopolophium dirhodum [Hom.: Aphididae] on the oviposition behaviour of the aphid parasitoid Aphidius rhopalosiphi [Hym.: Aphidiidae]. Entomophaga 33, 333–338 (1988).Article 

Google Scholar 
24.Tscharntke, T. et al. Conservation biological control and enemy diversity on a landscape scale. Biol. Control 43, 294–309 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
25.Rand, T. A., van Veen, F. J. F. & Tscharntke, T. Landscape complexity differentially benefits generalized fourth, over specialized third, trophic level natural enemies. Ecography 35, 97–104 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
26.Zhao, Z. H., Hui, C., He, D. H. & Li, B. L. Effects of agricultural intensification on ability of natural enemies to control aphids. Sci. Rep. 5, 8024 (2015).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
27.Vollhardt, I. M. G., Tscharntke, T., Wäckers, F. L., Bianchi, F. J. J. A. & Thies, C. Diversity of cereal aphid parasitoids in simple and complex landscapes. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 126, 289–292 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
28.Tomanović, Z. et al. Regional tritrophic relationship patterns of five aphid parasitoid species (Hymenoptera: Braconidae: Aphidiinae) in agroecosystem-dominated landscapes of southeastern Europe. J. Econ. Entomol. 102, 836–854 (2009).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
29.Kaartinen, R. & Roslin, T. Shrinking by numbers: landscape context affects the species composition but not the quantitative structure of local food webs. J. Anim. Ecol. 80, 622–631 (2011).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
30.Wang, S. & Brose, U. Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning in food webs: the vertical diversity hypothesis. Ecol. Lett. 21, 9–20 (2018).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
31.Garzke, J., Connor, S. J., Sommer, U. & O’Connor, M. I. Trophic interactions modify the temperature dependence of community biomass and ecosystem function. PLoS Biol. 17, e2006806 (2019).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
32.Pocock, M. J. O. et al. The visualisation of ecological networks, and their use as a tool for engagement, advocacy and management. Adv. Ecol. Res. 54, 41–85 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
33.Bersier, L.-F., Banašek-Richter, C. & Cattin, M.-F. Quantitative descriptors of food-web matrices. Ecology 83, 2394–2407 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
34.Tylianakis, J. M., Laliberté, E., Nielsen, A. & Bascompte, J. Conservation of species interaction networks. Biol. Conserv. 143, 2270–2279 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
35.Gilbert, A. J. Connectance indicates the robustness of food webs when subjected to species loss. Ecol. Indic. 9, 72–80 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
36.Williams, R. J. & Martinez, N. D. Simple rules yield complex food webs. Nature 404, 180–183 (2000).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
37.Galiana, N., Hawkins, B. A. & Montoya, J. M. The geographical variation of network structure is scale dependent: understanding the biotic specialization of host–parasitoid networks. Ecography 42, 1175–1187 (2019).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
38.Banašek-Richter, C., Cattin, M.-F. & Bersier, L.-F. Sampling effects and the robustness of quantitative and qualitative food-web descriptors. J. Theor. Biol. 226, 23–32 (2004).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
39.Varennes, Y. D., Boyer, S. & Wratten, S. D. Un-nesting DNA Russian dolls—the potential for constructing food webs using residual DNA in empty aphid mummies. Mol. Ecol. 23, 3925–3933 (2014).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
40.Zhu, Y. L. et al. A molecular detection approach for a cotton aphid-parasitoid complex in northern China. Sci. Rep. 9, 15836 (2019).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
41.Staniczenko, P. P. A. et al. Predicting the effect of habitat modification on networks of interacting species. Nat. Commun. 8, 792 (2018).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
42.Thies, C. & Tscharntke, T. In Biocontrol-Based Integrated Management of Oilseed Rape Pests (ed. Williams, I.H.). (Springer Netherlands, 2010).43.Tylianakis, J. M., Tscharntke, T. & Lewis, O. T. Habitat modification alters the structure of tropical host-parasitoid food webs. Nature 445, 202–205 (2007).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
44.Grass, I., Jauker, B., Steffandewenter, I., Tscharntke, T. & Jauker, F. Past and potential future effects of habitat fragmentation on structure and stability of plant-pollinator and host-parasitoid networks. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2, 1408–1417 (2018).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
45.Gagic, V. et al. Food web structure and biocontrol in a four-trophic level system across a landscape complexity gradient. Proc. Roy. Soc. B. 278, 2946–2953 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
46.Lundgren, J. G. & Fausti, S. W. Trading biodiversity for pest problems. Sci. Adv. 1, e1500558 (2015).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
47.Zhou, K. et al. Effects of land use and insecticides on natural enemies of aphids in cotton: first evidence from smallholder agriculture in the North China Plain. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 183, 176–184 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
48.Zhang, Z. Q. The natural enemies of Aphis gossypii Glover (Hom., Aphididae) in China. J. Appl. Entomol. 114, 251–262 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
49.Gagic, V. et al. Agricultural intensification and cereal aphid–parasitoid–hyperparasitoid food webs: network complexity, temporal variability and parasitism rates. Oecologia 170, 1099–1109 (2012).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
50.Vollhardt, I. M. G. et al. Influence of plant fertilisation on cereal aphid-primary parasitoid-secondary parasitoid networks in simple and complex landscapes. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 281, 47–55 (2019).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
51.Sullivan, D. J. & Völkl, W. Hyperparasitism: multitrophic ecology and behavior. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 44, 291–315 (1999).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
52.Dainese, M., Montecchiari, S., Sitzia, T., Sigura, M. & Marini, L. High cover of hedgerows in the landscape supports multiple ecosystem services in Mediterranean cereal fields. J. Appl. Ecol. 54, 380–388 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
53.Landis, D. A., Wratten, S. D. & Gurr, G. M. Habitat management to conserve natural enemies of arthropod pests in agriculture. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 45, 175–201 (2000).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
54.Thies, C., Roschewitz, I. & Tscharntke, T. The landscape context of cereal aphid-parasitoid interactions. Proc. Roy. Soc. B. 272, 203–210 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
55.Plećaš, M. et al. Landscape composition and configuration influence cereal aphid–parasitoid–hyperparasitoid interactions and biological control differentially across years. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 183, 1–10 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
56.Sirami, C. et al. Increasing crop heterogeneity enhances multitrophic diversity across agricultural regions. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 16442–16447 (2019).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
57.Lichtenberg, E. M. et al. A global synthesis of the effects of diversified farming systems on arthropod diversity within fields and across agricultural landscapes. Glob. Change Biol. 23, 4946–4957 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
58.Osorio, S., Arnan, X., Bassols, E., Vicens, N. & Bosch, J. Local and landscape effects in a host-parasitoid interaction network along a forest-cropland gradient. Ecol. Appl. 25, 1869–1879 (2015).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
59.Dunne, J., Williams, R. & Martinez, N. Network topology and biodiversity loss in food webs: robustness increases with connectance. Ecol. Lett. 5, 558–567 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
60.Montoya, J. M., Rodríguez, M. A. & Hawkins, B. A. Food web complexity and higher-level ecosystem services. Ecol. Lett. 6, 587–593 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
61.Hawkins, B. A. Parasitoid-host food webs and donor control. Oikos 65, 159–162 (1992).Article 

Google Scholar 
62.Yeakel, J. D. et al. Diverse interactions and ecosystem engineering can stabilize community assembly. Nat. Commun. 11, 3307 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
63.Poisot, T., Mouquet, N. & Gravel, D. Trophic complementarity drives the biodiversity-ecosystem functioning relationship in food webs. Ecol. Lett. 16, 853–861 (2013).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
64.White, L., O’Connor, N. E., Yang, Q., Emmerson, M. C. & Donohue, I. Individual species provide multifaceted contributions to the stability of ecosystems. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 4, 1594–1601 (2020).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
65.Ho, H.-C., Tylianakis, J. M. & Pawar, S. Behaviour moderates the impacts of food-web structure on species coexistence. Ecol. Lett. 24, 298–309 (2021).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
66.Holland, J. M. et al. Agri-environment scheme enhancing ecosystem services: A demonstration of improved biological control in cereal crops. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 155, 147–152 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
67.Batary, P., Dicks, L., Kleijn, D. & Sutherland, W. The role of agri-environment schemes in conservation and environmental management: European Agri-Environment Schemes. Conserv. Biol. 29, 1006–1016 (2015).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
68.McGarigal, K., Cushman, S., Maile, N. & Ene, E. FRAGSTATS v4: Spatial Pattern Analysis Program for Categorical and Continuous Maps. Computer software program produced by the authors at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. http://www.umass.edu/landeco/research/fragstats/fragstats.html (2012).69.Liu, B. et al. Secondary crops and non-crop habitats within landscapes enhance the abundance and diversity of generalist predators. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 258, 30–39 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
70.Lu, Y. H., Qi, F. J. & Zhang, Y. J. Integrated Management of Diseases and Insect Pests in Cotton (Golden Shield Press, Beijing 2010).71.Shannon, C. E., Weaver, W., Blahut, R. E. & Hajek, B. The Mathematical Theory of Communications (University of Illinois Press, Urbana, 1949).72.Kembel, S. W. et al. Picante: R tools for integrating phylogenies and ecology. Bioinformatics 26, 1463–1464 (2010).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
73.R Development Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing, Version 4.0.2. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. http://www.R-project.org (2020).74.Dormann, C. F., Fründ, J. & Gruber, B. Package ‘bipartite’: Visualising bipartite networks and calculating some (ecological) indices. (2019).75.Huang, H. Y., Zhou, L., Chen, J. & Wei, T. Y. ggcor: Extended tools for correlation analysis and visualization. R package version 0.9.7. (2020).76.Oksanen, J. et al. vegan: community ecology package. R. package version 2, 5–6 (2020).
Google Scholar 
77.Kassambara, A. & Fabian, M. factoextra: Extract and Visualize the Results of Multivariate Data analyses. R package version 1.0.7. (2020).78.Akaike, H. An information criterion (AIC). Math. Sci. 14, 5–9 (1976).
Google Scholar 
79.Burnham, K. P. & Anderson, D. R. Multimodel inference understanding AIC and BIC in model selection. Sociol. Method. Res. 33, 261–304 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
80.Cardinale, B. J. et al. Effects of biodiversity on the functioning of trophic groups and ecosystems. Nature 443, 989–992 (2006).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
81.Fox, J. & Weisberg, S. An R Companion to Applied Regression, Third Edition. (Thousand Oaks CA: Sage., 2011).82.Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B. & Walker, S. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J. Stat. Softw. 67, 1–48 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
83.Bartoń, K. MuMIn: Multi-Model Inference. R package version 1.43.17. (2020).84.Thompson, R. M. et al. Food webs: reconciling the structure and function of biodiversity. Trends Ecol. Evol. 27, 689–697 (2012).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
85.Tylianakis, J. M. & Binzer, A. Effects of global environmental changes on parasitoid–host food webs and biological control. Biol. Control 75, 77–86 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
86.Lefcheck, J. S. piecewiseSEM: Piecewise structural equation modelling in r for ecology evolution, and systematics. Methods Ecol. Evol. 7, 573–579 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
87.Shipley, B. The AIC model selection method applied to path analytic models compared using a d-separation test. Ecology 94, 560–564 (2013).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
88.Yang, F. et al. The data for “Species diversity and food web structure jointly shape natural biological control in agricultural landscapes”. Dryad, Dataset https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.pc866t1kz (2021).Article 

Google Scholar  More

To defend against predators, insects often modify their morphology, flexibly, to enhance survival and reproductive advantages. Here, we report that predation risks from either isolated predator or predator odor cues, induce a higher proportion of nymphs to developed into long-winged females among the parent generation, as well as among F1 generation offspring. Surprisingly, these previously threatened long-winged adults survived better when attacked by a predator owing to the enhanced agility level gained from risk experience. The long wing, and increased agility level, provide adaptive benefits for SBPHs to escape from predation and so are able to go on to reproduce.SBPHs responded more strongly to the caged predators (visual + odor risk cues) and predator odor cues, than just the visual cue of the predator. Different risk cues can elicit different levels of responses in prey33,34,35,36. For example, in the case of the Colorado potato beetle, volatile odor cues from the predator stronger reduced the beetle feeding on plants than predator visual and tactile cues35. But a visual cue has been shown to be crucial for insect pollinators detecting and avoiding flowers with predators37. Insect herbivores frequently communicate via chemical odors33,38. Exploiting the odor cue to perceive the presence of predators should have advantages, because the odor cue can be sensed from a long distance and penetrate the blocking effect of foliage or canopy structure39, enabling the prior detection of risks and the preparation of antipredation behaviors.In densely planted rice paddies, the active foraging behavior of rove beetle may serve as a selective pressure favouring the development in SBPHs of a chemical instead of visual pathway to detect the approach of a rove beetle. However, in the F1 generation, the influence of a predator odor cue on the proportion of winged forms was weaker than that of caged predators, indicating the combined effects of odor and visual cues might be stronger than only an odor cue, suggesting that visual cues cannot be ignored. In our experiments, sealed predator cadavers may have weakened the visual cue of the rove beetles, because the lack of motion did not fully represent the normal visual cue.SBPHs frequently exhibit wing plasticity in response to population density and food quality28,29. When nymph density is higher, or food has deteriorated, a higher proportion of macropters will arise28,29. The development of the winged form is thought to be a strategy for SBPHs to emigrate from inhospitable environments. However, we assumed, predation risks could also induce the occurrence of the winged form, because long wings might enable SBPHs to escape from predation. As expected, the results presented here show that a higher proportion of long-winged females and their offspring arose when nymphs or adults were previously exposed to predation risk, demonstrating that SBPHs can express morphologically plastic defenses in response to prior predation risk. Additionally, the higher proportion of wing forms was not only due to the increasing number of winged females (see Fig. 1, the number of winged females in “caged rove beetle” treatment was lower), but also the increasing proportion of winged females among female groups (the decreasing numbers and proportions of wingless females, Fig. 1). To date, similar patterns have only been shown in pea aphids, in which when predation risk (foot prints from lady beetles) is higher during the parent generation, a higher proportion of winged morphs arise in the offspring40,41. In our experiments, we tested the risk effects passing from nymphs to adults and from parents to their offspring with combined risk cues, an odor cue or a visual cue, which better reveals the capacity for flexible defense strategies within SBPHs and the nature of predation risks in the perpetual ‘arms race’ against predation. This is the first example of how insects can express both within- generational and transgenerational morphological plasticity as a defense strategy in response to prior predator threat, and we suggest that this phenomenon is likely to occur more widely.However, SBPHs do not only face a single lethal pressure from their environment as we discussed above. Nymph density, food quality, even the temperatures or photoperiods may play or interplay roles in the induction of wing plasticity in SBPHs28,29. In these situations, the responses of SBPHs may differ from present results, or opposite results can occur. As an example, the growth rates of snails vary depending on snail densities, food supply and the strength of predation risks. Growth rates were higher when snails were reared on high nutrients and in low densities, but decreased steeply as the predation risk increased. Conversely, the growth rate was lower at high densities and with high predation risk, but increased as nutrient availability increased42. As for SBPHs, the proportion of winged adults may be higher if we reared in higher densities combined with high predation risk, or may be lower if the nutrient condition of the rice plants increases (for example, higher fertilizer inputs benefit the development of planthoppers43) and predators are removed. This hypothesis needs to be tested. Further, the rice plant phenotypes (resistant or sensitive phenotypes) are important to the development of planthoppers or leafhoppers44,45,46, and tests of the interactive effects of plant phenotype, plant quality/quantity, nymph density and predation risk on the wing plasticity of SBPHs should provide insights into the evolution of insects within changing environments.Induced transgenerational defense plasticity as shown in SBPHs may be common in many organisms20,47. It allows parents to transfer their risk experience to offspring and promotes their evolutionary fitness20. When SBPH nymphs are exposed to predation risk, they are likely to develop into long-winged females, because it is an advantageous form for them in the current risk environment. However, such predation risk is variable in time and space, and SBPH parents cannot predict when or whether the predators will disappear. Thus, an appropriate strategy to enhance the survival rate of offspring in an unpredictable environment is to continue producing a higher proportion of long-winged forms. Within-generational and transgenerational plasticity of defense should be a successful adaptive defense strategy for SBPHs, given that rove beetle and other groups of predators such as predatory spiders are abundant all around the year in rice paddies.The higher mortality of SBPH nymphs when they experience predation risk, has been broadly addressed before24,48,49. Reduced food intake during risk periods may contribute to this poorer survival outcome, because insects are likely to alter their feeding behavior50,51, or shift from a high-risk host to a safer, but nutritionally inferior, one52, when they detect the presence of predators. However, we did not observe an apparent behavior change in threatened nymphs in our experiments, even those going on to be macropters, compared to the non-threatened ones. For example, changing feeding location, non-feeding related motility, an increase in jump frequency, etc. did not occur in threatened nymphs. Thus, behavior plasticity seems not to be invoked to explain this phenomenon. However, considering the food consumption of sap-sucking SBPHs is difficult to determine, experiments employing electrical penetration graph (EPG) techniques should be conducted to quantify the amounts of sap consumption during risk periods53. This will help to explain whether the higher mortality is due to a change of feeding behavior (less food intake). Furthermore, some obscure internal physiological plasticity may also cause the higher mortality of SBPH nymphs at risk. For example, increased oxidative damage and decreased assimilation efficiency during the risk period may weaken the survival success of SBPH nymphs. Unfortunately, few studies have verified this assumption, although it has been shown that different assimilation efficiencies may arise under predation risk17, or oxidative damage may be induced by predation risk resulting in a slower growth rate54 and decreased escape performance55.SBPHs exhibit sexual differences in both with- and trans- generational morphological plasticity in relation to defense, i.e., threatened nymphs/parents are more likely to develop into long-winged females, due to the different vulnerability of females and males to predation. This predation difference is particularly acute between short-winged females and males, given that the proportion of short-winged females is lower than that seen in control settings (Fig. 1), and we assume the level of vulnerability may depend on their body size and reproductive role. The body sizes of short-winged females are larger than those of long-winged females or males, causing them to be more vulnerable to predation because they are more highly preferred targets for predator. Also, the short-winged female needs to stay and deposit eggs in the bare rice stem, which increases the time window of exposure to predators while, by contrast, long-winged males are slim and are not required to lay eggs, and so should be not be heavily predated. It follows that short-winged females should be more vulnerable to predation than long-winged females or males. Hence, in SHPBs, increasing the proportion of long-wing females in a population creates greater opportunities to migrate to predator-free habitats for reproduction, while at the same time reducing their vulnerability to predation. We hypothesize that the sexual difference in responses should be adaptive, and might be inheritable if predation pressure frequently favors the long-winged forms among populations over multiple generations.Results presented here also show that previously threatened long-winged offspring survived better than previosuly non-threatened ones when attacked by P. fuscipes. Studies suggest prey-altered morphology in response to predation risks should confer a survival advantage (fitness gained), i.e., a better-developed defensive structure13,24, or refuge in having a larger size that increase survival success57. However, wings themselves are without protective functions for SBPHs, as seen in pea aphids41. Thus, we setup behavioral experiments to reveal how threatened long-winged adults may increase their survival when attacked by a predator. Results show threatened long- winged offspring (but not parents) are more active, and respond more quickly, than unthreatened ones, i.e., a higher number of attacks are needed for P. fuscipes to capture a previously threatened long-winged offspring than one that has not been threatened before. We suggest the increased agility level is not because of the long wing itself, but due to the enhanced muscle strength in the legs of long-winged adults, because in our observation, long-winged adults avoid attack mainly by jumping but not by flight, probably because a jump needs less reaction time than flight.We only observed transgenerational plasticity of induced behavioral defense in SBPHs. This generational difference (within- and trans-generational) in behavioral defense in SBPHs may reflect potential carry-over effects from parents. To our knowledge, the generational difference in defense has rarely been shown in insects, though in pea aphids a fluctuating expression of transgenerational defensive traits (long wing) over generations when predation risk was present or absent has been reported58. We also expect there will be cumulative effects59 accumulated by SBPHs from the parent generation to the F1 generation. However, we are not certain whether these effects exist in our experiments. To determine this, experiments examining defensive traits across multigeneration should be conducted.However, if predation risk increases the number of agile, long-winged SBPH adults, which are of benefit in respect of dispersal, migration, and thus spreading rice viruses, the application of P. fuscipes in biological control appears ultimately to weaken the control effectiveness. Also, a study with field experiments found that predatory ladybugs increase the number of dispersed aphid nymphs, especially in plants with lower resistance. However, surprising results show that the higher number of dispersed aphid nymphs will not necessarily translate into population growth because dispersed aphids are weak (less food intake) and more easily predated by predators60. Thus, the benefits of anti-predator defense in aphids will, over time, translate into negative developmental costs that suppress the aphid population. As for SBPHs, threatened long-winged females perform well in dispersal and defense, but worse in development and reproduction. Recent experiments reveal that previously threatened long-winged females have a longevity that is three days shorter, and produces about 60 fewer eggs per female, than non-threatened long-winged females (unpublished data). Consequently, these negative effects would eventually translate into lower population growth rates within SBPHs. Thus, the introduction of the predation risk from P. fuscipes to control SBPHs is workable, since field experiments in controlling western flower thrips and grasshoppers by exposure to predation risk have been successful49,61, and the main purpose of biological control is to suppress the pest population beneath the relevant economic threshold, and reduce plant mass loss without necessarily eliminating the pest altogether.This study advances the importance of predation risk on the induction of flexible anti-predation defenses in insect parents and their offspring, uncovers the mediating mechanisms, shows how this anti-predation defense expresses differently between sexes, and further explores the adaptation significance of these defense traits for insects exposed to unpredictable environments. These findings should prove important for predicting SBPH migration or dispersal, conducting effective pest control, and better understanding prey-predator interactions. However, future work should examine the effects of predation risks from other groups of predators or parasites on the physiological and behavioral plasticity of SBPHs. More