Ecology

Saxon E, Bertozzi C. Cell surface engineering by a modified Staudinger reaction. Science. 2000;287:2007–10.CAS 

Google Scholar 
Staudinger H, Meyer J. Über neue organische Phosphorverbindungen III. Phosphinmethylenderivate und Phosphinimine. Helv Chim Acta. 1919;2:635–46. https://doi.org/10.1002/hlca.19190020164.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Laughlin ST, Bertozzi CR. Metabolic labeling of glycans with azido sugars and subsequent glycan-profiling and visualization via Staudinger ligation. Nat Protoc. 2007;2:2930–44.CAS 

Google Scholar 
Oliveira BL, Guo Z, Bernardes GJL. Inverse electron demand Diels–Alder reactions in chemical biology. Chem Soc Rev. 2017;46:4895–950.CAS 

Google Scholar 
Lang K, Chin JW. Bioorthogonal reactions for labeling proteins. ACS Chem Biol. 2014;9:16–20. https://doi.org/10.1021/cb4009292.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Kolb HC, Finn MG, Sharpless K. Click chemistry: diverse chemical function from a few good reactions. Angew Chemie-Int Ed. 2001;40:2004–21.CAS 

Google Scholar 
Tornøe C, Christensen C, Meldal M. Peptidotriazoles on Solid Phase: [1,2,3]-Triazoles by regiospecific Copper(I)-Catalyzed 1,3-Dipolar Cycloadditions of Terminal Alkynes to Azides. J Org Chem. 2002;67:3057–64. https://doi.org/10.1021/jo011148j.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Bakkum T, Leeuwen T, van, Sarris AJC, Elsland DM, van, Poulcharidis D, Overkleeft HS, et al. Quantification of bioorthogonal stability in immune phagocytes using flow cytometry reveals rapid degradation of strained alkynes. ACS Chem Biol. 2018;13:1173–9. https://doi.org/10.1021/acschembio.8b0035.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Wang Q, Chan T, Hilgraf R, Fokin R, Sharpless K, Finn M. Bioconjugation by copper(I)-catalyzed azide-alkyne [3 + 2] cycloaddition. J Am Chem Soc. 2003;125:3192–3.CAS 

Google Scholar 
Link A, Tirrell D. Cell surface labeling of Escherichia coli via copper(I)-catalyzed [3+2] cycloaddition. J Am Chem Soc. 2003;125:11164–5.CAS 

Google Scholar 
Dieterich D, Link A, Tirrell D, Schuman E. Selective identification of newly synthesized proteins in mammalian cells using bioorthogonal noncanonical amino acid tagging (BONCAT). Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2006;103:9482–7.CAS 

Google Scholar 
McKay C, Finn M. Click chemistry in complex mixtures: bioorthogonal bioconjugation. Chem Biol. 2014;21:1075–101.CAS 

Google Scholar 
Agard N, Prescher J, Bertozzi C. A strain-promoted [3 + 2] Azide−Alkyne cycloaddition for covalent modification of biomolecules in living systems. J Am Chem Soc. 2004;126:15046–7. https://doi.org/10.1021/ja044996f.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Weissleder R, Hilderbrand S. Tetrazine-based cycloadditions: application to pretargeted live cell imaging. Bioconjug Chem. 2008;19:2297–9.
Google Scholar 
Scinto SL, Bilodeau DA, Hincapie R, Lee W, Nguyen SS, Xu M, et al. Bioorthogonal chemistry. Nat Rev Methods. 2021;1:1–23.
Google Scholar 
Sletten E, Bertozzi C. Bioorthogonal chemistry: fishing for selectivity in a sea of functionality. Angew Chem Int Ed Engl. 2009;48:6974–98.CAS 

Google Scholar 
Moses JE, Moorhouse AD. The growing applications of click chemistry. Chem Soc Rev. 2007;36:1249–62.CAS 

Google Scholar 
Banahene N, Kavunja HW, Swarts BM. Chemical reporters for bacterial glycans: development and applications. Chem Rev. 2021;122:3336–413. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.chemrev.1c00729.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Hatzenpichler R, Krukenberg V, Spietz RL, Jay ZJ. Next-generation physiology approaches to study microbiome function at single cell level. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2020;184:241–56.
Google Scholar 
Siegrist M, Whiteside S, Jewett J, Aditham A, Cava F, Bertozzi C. (D)-Amino acid chemical reporters reveal peptidoglycan dynamics of an intracellular pathogen. ACS Chem Biol. 2013;8:500–5.CAS 

Google Scholar 
Liechti G, Kuru E, Hall E, Kalinda A, Brun YV, VanNieuwenhze M, et al. A new metabolic cell wall labeling method reveals peptidoglycan in Chlamydia trachomatis. Nature. 2014;506:507. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature12892.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Pilhofer M, Aistleitner K, Biboy J, Gray J, Kuru E, Hall E, et al. Discovery of chlamydial peptidoglycan reveals bacteria with murein sacculi but without FtsZ. Nat Commun. 2013;4:1–7.
Google Scholar 
Taylor JA, Bratton BP, Sichel SR, Blair KM, Jacobs HM, Demeester KE, et al. Distinct cytoskeletal proteins define zones of enhanced cell wall synthesis in helicobacter pylori. Elife. 2020;9:e52482.CAS 

Google Scholar 
Kuru E, Hughes HV, Brown PJ, Hall E, Tekkam S, Cava F, et al. In situ probing of newly synthesized peptidoglycan in live bacteria with fluorescent D-amino acids. Angew Chemie Int Ed. 2012;51:12519–23. https://doi.org/10.1002/anie.201206749.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
van Teeseling MCF, Mesman RJ, Kuru E, Espaillat A, Cava F, Brun YV, et al. Anammox Planctomycetes have a peptidoglycan cell wall. Nat Commun. 2015;6:6878. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms7878.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Wang W, Yang Q, Du Y, Zhou X, Du X, Wu Q. et al. Metabolic labeling of Peptidoglycan with NIR-II dye enables in vivo imaging of gut microbiota. Angew Chemie Int Ed. 2020;59:2628–33. https://doi.org/10.1002/anie.201910555.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Wang W, Zhu Y, Chen X. imaging of gram-negative and gram-positive microbiotas in the mouse gut. Biochemistry. 2017;56:3889–93.CAS 

Google Scholar 
Geva-Zatorsky N, Alvarez D, Hudak JE, Reading NC, Erturk-Hasdemir D, Dasgupta S, et al. In vivo imaging and tracking of host-microbiota interactions via metabolic labeling of gut anaerobic bacteria. Nat Med. 2015;21:1091–100.CAS 

Google Scholar 
Besanceney-Webler C, Jiang H, Wang W, Baughn AD, Wu P. Metabolic labeling of fucosylated glycoproteins in Bacteroidales species. Bioorg Med Chem Lett. 2011;21:4989–92.CAS 

Google Scholar 
Han Z, Thuy-Boun PS, Pfeiffer W, Vartabedian VF, Torkamani A, Teijaro JR, et al. Identification of an N-acetylneuraminic acid-presenting bacteria isolated from a human microbiome. Sci Rep. 2021;11:1–12.
Google Scholar 
Becam J, Walter T, Burgert A, Schlegel J, Sauer M, Seibel J, et al. Antibacterial activity of ceramide and ceramide analogs against pathogenic Neisseria. Sci Rep. 2017;7:1–12.CAS 

Google Scholar 
Nilsson I, Lee SY, Sawyer WS, Baxter Rath CM, Lapointe G, Six DA. Metabolic phospholipid labeling of intact bacteria enables a fluorescence assay that detects compromised outer membranes. J Lipid Res. 2020;61:870–83.CAS 

Google Scholar 
Evershed RP, Crossman ZM, Bull ID, Mottram H, Dungait JAJ, Maxfield PJ, et al. 13C-Labelling of lipids to investigate microbial communities in the environment. Curr Opin Biotechnol. 2006;17:72–82.CAS 

Google Scholar 
Salic A, Mitchison TJ. A chemical method for fast and sensitive detection of DNA synthesis in vivo. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2008;105:2415–20. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0712168105.Article 

Google Scholar 
Smriga S, Samo TJ, Malfatti F, Villareal J, Azam F. Individual cell DNA synthesis within natural marine bacterial assemblages as detected by ‘click’ chemistry. Aquat Microb Ecol. 2014;72:269–80.
Google Scholar 
Beauchemina ET, Hunter C, Maurice CF. Actively replicating gut bacteria identified by 5-ethynyl-2’-deoxyuridine (EdU) click chemistry and cell sorting. bioRxiv. 2022. https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.07.20.500840v2.Sinclair L, Barthelemy C, Cantrell D. Single cell glucose uptake assays: a cautionary tale. Immunometabolism. 2020;2. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32879737/.Hu F, Chen DZ, Zhang DL, Shen Y, Wei L, Min PW. Vibrational imaging of glucose uptake activity in live cells and tissues by stimulated Raman scattering. Angew Chem Int Ed Engl. 2015;54:9821.CAS 

Google Scholar 
Kiick K, Saxon E, Tirrell D, Bertozzi C. Incorporation of azides into recombinant proteins for chemoselective modification by the Staudinger ligation. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2002;99:19–24.CAS 

Google Scholar 
Kiick K, Tirrell D. Protein engineering by in vivo incorporation of non-natural amino acids: control of incorporation of methionine analogues by Methionyl-tRNA Synthetase. Tetrahedron. 2000;56:9487–93.CAS 

Google Scholar 
Ignacio B, Bakkum T, Bonger K, Martin N, van Kasteren S. Metabolic labeling probes for interrogation of the host-pathogen interaction. Org Biomol Chem. 2021;19:2856–70.CAS 

Google Scholar 
Bagert JD, Kessel JC, van, Sweredoski MJ, Feng L, Hess S, Bassler BL, et al. Time-resolved proteomic analysis of quorum sensing in Vibrio harveyi. Chem Sci. 2016;7:1797–806.CAS 

Google Scholar 
Babin BM, Atangcho L, Van Eldijk MB, Sweredoski MJ, Moradian A, Hess S, et al. Selective proteomic analysis of antibiotic-tolerant cellular subpopulations in pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilms. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1128/mBio.01593-17.Hatzenpichler R, Scheller S, Tavormina PL, Babin BM, Tirrell DA, Orphan VJ. In situ visualization of newly synthesized proteins in environmental microbes using amino acid tagging and click chemistry. Environ Microbiol. 2014;16:2568–90. https://doi.org/10.1111/1462-2920.12436.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Samo TJ, Smriga S, Malfatti F, Sherwood BP, Azam F. Broad distribution and high proportion of protein synthesis active marine bacteria revealed by click chemistry at the single cell level. Front Mar Sci. 2014;0:48.
Google Scholar 
Hatzenpichler R, Connon SA, Goudeau D, Malmstrom RR, Woyke T, Orphan VJ. Visualizing in situ translational activity for identifying and sorting slow-growing archaeal-bacterial consortia. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2016;113:E4069–78. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1603757113.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Couradeau E, Sasse J, Goudeau D, Nath N, Hazen TC, Bowen BP, et al. Probing the active fraction of soil microbiomes using BONCAT-FACS. Nat Commun. 2019;10:1–10.CAS 

Google Scholar 
Leizeaga A, Estrany M, Forn I, Sebastián M. Using click-chemistry for visualizing in situ changes of translational activity in planktonic marine bacteria. Front Microbiol. 2017;0:2360.
Google Scholar 
Lindivat M, Larsen A, Hess-Erga OK, Bratbak G, Hoell IA. Bioorthogonal non-canonical amino acid tagging combined with flow cytometry for determination of activity in aquatic microorganisms. Front Microbiol. 2020;0:1929.
Google Scholar 
Chen L, Zhao B, Li X, Cheng Z, Wu R, Xia Y. Isolating and characterizing translationally active fraction of anammox microbiota using bioorthogonal non-canonical amino acid tagging. Chem Eng J. 2021;418:129411.CAS 

Google Scholar 
McKay LJ, Smith HJ, Barnhart EP, Schweitzer HD, Malmstrom RR, Goudeau D, et al. Activity-based, genome-resolved metagenomics uncovers key populations and pathways involved in subsurface conversions of coal to methane. ISME J. 2021;16:915–26.
Google Scholar 
Du Z, Behrens SF. Tracking de novo protein synthesis in the activated sludge microbiome using BONCAT-FACS. Water Res. 2021;205:117696.CAS 

Google Scholar 
Valentini TD, Lucas SK, Binder KA, Cameron LC, Motl JA, Dunitz JM, et al. Bioorthogonal non-canonical amino acid tagging reveals translationally active subpopulations of the cystic fibrosis lung microbiota. Nat Commun. 2020;11:1–11.
Google Scholar 
Taguer M, Shapiro BJ, Maurice CF. Translational activity is uncoupled from nucleic acid content in bacterial cells of the human gut microbiota. Gut Microbes. 2021;13:1–15.
Google Scholar 
Banahene N, Kavunja HW, Swarts BM. Chemical reporters for bacterial glycans: development and applications. Chem Rev. 2021;122:3336–413. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.chemrev.1c00729.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Kavunja HW, Piligian BF, Fiolek TJ, Foley HN, Nathan TO, Swarts BM. A chemical reporter strategy for detecting and identifying O-mycoloylated proteins in Corynebacterium. Chem Commun. 2016;52:13795–8.CAS 

Google Scholar 
Demeester KE, Liang H, Jensen MR, Jones ZS, D’Ambrosio EA, Scinto SL, et al. Synthesis of functionalized N-Acetyl Muramic acids to probe bacterial cell wall recycling and biosynthesis. J Am Chem Soc. 2018;140:9458–65. https://doi.org/10.1021/jacs.8b03304.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Moulton KD, Adewale AP, Carol HA, Mikami SA, Dube DH. Metabolic glycan labeling-based screen to identify bacterial glycosylation genes. ACS Infect Dis. 2020;6:3247–59. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsinfecdis.0c00612.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Keller LJ, Babin BM, Lakemeyer M, Bogyo M. Activity-based protein profiling in bacteria: Applications for identification of therapeutic targets and characterization of microbial communities. Curr Opin Chem Biol. 2020;54:45–53.CAS 

Google Scholar 
Speers AE, Adam GC, Cravatt BF. Activity-based protein profiling in vivo using a copper(I)-catalyzed azide-alkyne [3 + 2] cycloaddition. J Am Chem Soc. 2003;125:4686–7. https://doi.org/10.1021/ja034490.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Krysiak J, Sieber SA. Activity-based protein profiling in bacteria. Methods Mol Biol. 2017;1491:57–74.CAS 

Google Scholar 
Jariwala PB, Pellock SJ, Cloer EW, Artola M, Simpson JB, Bhatt AP, et al. Discovering the microbial enzymes driving drug toxicity with activity-based protein profiling. ACS Chem Biol. 2020;15:217–25. https://doi.org/10.1021/acschembio.9b00788.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Kovalyova Y, Hatzios SK. Activity-based protein profiling at the host-pathogen interface. Curr Top Microbiol Immunol. 2019;420:73–91.CAS 

Google Scholar 
Sakoula D, Smith GJ, Frank J, Mesman RJ, Kop LFM, Blom P, et al. Universal activity-based labeling method for ammonia- and alkane-oxidizing bacteria. ISME J. 2021;16:958–71.
Google Scholar 
Fan Y, Pedersen O. Gut microbiota in human metabolic health and disease. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2020;19:55–71.
Google Scholar 
Fitzpatrick CR, Salas-González I, Conway JM, Finkel OM, Gilbert S, Russ D, et al. The plant microbiome: from ecology to reductionism and beyond. 101146/annurev-micro-022620-014327. 2020;74:81–100. https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-micro-022620-014327.Kawecki TJ, Lenski RE, Ebert D, Hollis B, Olivieri I, Whitlock MC. Experimental evolution. Trends Ecol Evol. 2012;27:547–60.
Google Scholar 
Lenski RE. Experimental evolution and the dynamics of adaptation and genome evolution in microbial populations. ISME J. 2017;11:2181–94.CAS 

Google Scholar 
Rodríguez-Verdugo A. Evolving Interactions and Emergent Functions in Microbial Consortia. mSystems. 2021;6. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34427521/.Pascual-García A, Bonhoeffer S, Bell T. Metabolically cohesive microbial consortia and ecosystem functioning. Philos Trans R Soc B. 2020;375. https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rstb.2019.0245.Ackermann M. A functional perspective on phenotypic heterogeneity in microorganisms. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2015;13:497–508.CAS 

Google Scholar 
Balaban NQ, Helaine S, Lewis K, Ackermann M, Aldridge B, Andersson DI, et al. Definitions and guidelines for research on antibiotic persistence. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2019;17:441–8.CAS 

Google Scholar 
Vermeersch L, Perez-Samper G, Cerulus B, Jariani A, Gallone B, Voordeckers K, et al. On the duration of the microbial lag phase. Curr Genet. 2019;65:721–7.CAS 

Google Scholar 
Solopova A, van Gestel J, Weissing FJ, Bachmann H, Teusink B, Kok J, et al. Bet-hedging during bacterial diauxic shift. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2014;111:7427–32.CAS 

Google Scholar 
Zhang Z, Du C, de Barsy F, Liem M, Liakopoulos A, van Wezel GP, et al. Antibiotic production in Streptomyces is organized by a division of labor through terminal genomic differentiation. Sci Adv. 2020;6:eaay5781.CAS 

Google Scholar 
Mavridou DAI, Gonzalez D, Kim W, West SA, Foster KR. Bacteria use collective behavior to generate diverse combat strategies. Curr Biol. 2018;28:345–355.e4.CAS 

Google Scholar 
Levin AM, de Vries RP, Conesa A, de Bekker C, Talon M, Menke HH, et al. Spatial differentiation in the vegetative mycelium of Aspergillus niger. Eukaryot Cell. 2007;6:2311–22.CAS 

Google Scholar 
Zacchetti B, Wösten HAB, Claessen D. Multiscale heterogeneity in filamentous microbes. Biotechnol Adv. 2018;36:2138–49.CAS 

Google Scholar 
Bleichrodt R-J, Vinck A, Read ND, Wösten HAB. Selective transport between heterogeneous hyphal compartments via the plasma membrane lining septal walls of Aspergillus niger. Fungal Genet Biol. 2015;82:193–200.CAS 

Google Scholar 
Nürnberg DJ, Mariscal V, Bornikoel J, Nieves-Morión M, Krauß N, Herrero A, et al. Intercellular diffusion of a fluorescent sucrose analog via the septal junctions in a Filamentous Cyanobacterium. MBio. 2015;6. https://journals.asm.org/doi/full/10.1128/mBio.02109-14.Pasulka AL, Thamatrakoln K, Kopf SH, Guan Y, Poulos B, Moradian A, et al. Interrogating marine virus-host interactions and elemental transfer with BONCAT and nanoSIMS-based methods. Environ Microbiol. 2018;20:671–92. https://doi.org/10.1111/1462-2920.13996.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Berjón-Otero M, Duponchel S, Hackl T, Fischer M. Visualization of giant virus particles using BONCAT labeling and STED microscopy. bioRxiv. 2020;2020.07.14.202192. https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.07.14.202192v1.Steward KF, Eilers B, Tripet B, Fuchs A, Dorle M, Rawle R, et al. Metabolic implications of using BioOrthogonal Non-Canonical Amino Acid Tagging (BONCAT) for tracking protein synthesis. Front Microbiol. 2020;0:197.
Google Scholar 
van Elsland DM, Pujals S, Bakkum T, Bos E, Oikonomeas-Koppasis N, Berlin I, et al. Ultrastructural Imaging of Salmonella–Host interactions using super-resolution correlative light-electron microscopy of bioorthogonal pathogens. ChemBioChem. 2018;19:1766–70. https://doi.org/10.1002/cbic.201800230.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Michels DE, Lomenick B, Chou T-F, Sweredoski MJ, Pasulka A. Amino acid analog induces stress response in marine Synechococcus. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2021;87:1–18. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.00200-21.Article 

Google Scholar 
Hong V, Steinmetz NF, Manchester M, Finn MG. Labeling live cells by copper-catalyzed alkyne−azide click chemistry. Bioconjug Chem. 2010;21:1912–6. https://doi.org/10.1021/bc100272z.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
van Geel R, Pruijn G, van Delft F, Boelens W. Preventing thiol-yne addition improves the specificity of strain-promoted azide-alkyne cycloaddition. Bioconjug Chem. 2012;23:392–8.
Google Scholar 
Patterson DM, Nazarova LA, Prescher JA. Finding the Right (Bioorthogonal) Chemistry. ACS Chem Biol. 2014;9:592–605. https://doi.org/10.1021/cb400828a.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Ignacio BJ, Dijkstra J, Garcia NM, Slot EFJ, van Weijsten MJ, Storkebaum E, et al. THRONCAT: Efficient metabolic labeling of newly synthesized proteins using a bioorthogonal threonine analog. bioRxiv. 2022. https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.03.29.486210v1.Wright MH. Chemical proteomics of host–microbe interactions. Proteomics. 2018;18:1700333. https://doi.org/10.1002/pmic.201700333.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Yu H, Schomaker J. Recent developments and strategies for mutually orthogonal bioorthogonal reactions. Chembiochem. 2021;22:3254–62.
Google Scholar 
Willems LI, Li N, Florea BI, Ruben M, van der Marel GA, Overkleeft HS. Triple bioorthogonal ligation strategy for simultaneous labeling of multiple enzymatic activities. Angew Chemie Int Ed. 2012;51:4431–4. https://doi.org/10.1002/anie.201200923.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Simon C, Lion C, Spriet C, Baldacci-Cresp F, Hawkins S, Biot C. One, two, three: a bioorthogonal triple labelling strategy for studying the dynamics of plant cell wall formation in vivo. Angew Chemie Int Ed. 2018;57:16665–71. https://doi.org/10.1002/anie.201808493.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Chio TI, Gu H, Mukherjee K, Tumey LN, Bane SL. Site-specific bioconjugation and multi-bioorthogonal labeling via rapid formation of a boron–nitrogen heterocycle. Bioconjug Chem. 2019;30:1554–64. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.bioconjchem.9b0024.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Bakkum T, Heemskerk MT, Bos E, Groenewold M, Oikonomeas-Koppasis N, Walburg KV, et al. Bioorthogonal correlative light-electron microscopy of mycobacterium tuberculosis in macrophages reveals the effect of antituberculosis drugs on subcellular bacterial distribution. ACS Cent Sci. 2020;6:1997–2007. https://doi.org/10.1021/acscentsci.0c00539.Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar  More

Effects of cropland conversion on OC pool in bulk soilCropland restoration identified as an efficient ecological project to promote soil C sequestration in karst erosion areas28,30. The conversion from MS to FG resulted in the total soil OC content and stock across 0–30 cm layers increasing by 46.12% and 43.73% respectively. The result was highly coincident with previous studies observed at 0–10 cm layer, which reported that FG cultivation replaced from MS cultivation could remarkably increase soil OC pool in karst region, Southwest China28. In our study, the lower OC content and stock in MS may be partially attributed to the non-returned crop residues and increased exposure of deep soil OM to oxygen under tillage disturbance, resulting in decreased soil OC accumulation through reducing the input of OM and accelerating OM decomposition28,30,37,38. Nevertheless, the conversion from MS to FG can increase the soil OC pool by increasing inputs from crops. For detail, laregly aboverground crops are harvested and removed from the fields each every year for economic production, there is thus a lack of aboverground OC input. Therefore, the root biomass became the main source of OM inputs, and even slight changes in biomass can substantially alter soil C level39. In the present study, the root biomass in FG field was approximately 6 times that in MS field (110.06 ± 17.24 kg hm−2 averagely) (Table S2). Consequently, the higher root biomass in FG are responsible for the corresponding higher C storage of fine root in FG, which is supported by the fact that higher amount of C were stored in the fine roots of FG field compared with that of MS field (Table S2). In fact, several studies have demonstrated that cultivation of perennial grasses is efficient in stimulating soil OC accumulation owing to its great amount of fine roots and underground biomass33,40. Soil disturbance (such as tillage) is one of the main causes of soil C depletion in agricultural systems, and increased tillage practice can result in greater soil C loss41,42,43. Therefore, the frequent tillage conducted in MS field resulted in lower levels of OC than that in FG field under minimal tillage disturbance.Impacts of cropland conversion on soil aggregates structure and stabilitySoil structure plays an important role in soil environment and quality, which is strongly characterized by soil aggregates and their stability43,44. In our study, soil macro-aggregates dominated the largest portion of total soil while meso-aggregates and micro-aggregates were only accounted for a small portion, indicating that cropland conversion could facilitated the formation of macro-aggregates (Table 2). These findings are in line with other studies, wherein that macro-aggregates occupied the major portion of total soil following farmland or vegetation restoration19,30. Tillage disturbance often disrupts aggregates by bringing subsurface soil to the surface, which can readily promote soil C turnover and hinder macro-aggregate formation45. Conversely, minimal tillage experienced and greater accumulation of root residues resulted in higher C accumulation in the FG field. Furthermore, fine roots improved the soil aggregate stability via the interaction with mycorrhizal fungi, which produced exudates and binding agents and promoted the formation of soil aggregates46,47. Therefore, higher inputs of root residue in the soil could enhance the capacity of aggregate re-formation. In fact, these can be supported by the higher value of root biomass and its C stock in the FG field. In addition, forage grass cultivation can enhance the formation of large and stable soil aggregates by fine roots and fungal hyphae through the production of exudates and binding agents, such as humic compounds, polymers and roots48,49. Thus, few tillage disturbance and higher inputs of root biomass in FG field resulted in soil aggregation enhanced, especially macro-aggregates.Soil aggregate stability can also be characterized by the values of MWD and GMD. Higher MWD or GMD values indicate greater aggregate stability due to more agglomerate ability. The value of MWD in the current study varied from 1.36 to 1.96, which was classified as “stable” by LeBissonnais’ categorization of aggregate stability50.Regardless of soil depth, the FG field had the greatest MWD and GMD values, indicating that its soil aggregates were more stable than those of the other three cropland use types. We may thus draw the conclusion that FG cropland conversion can improve the stability of aggregates based on MWD and GMD.Changes in OC stocks associated –aggregates following cropland conversionCropland use change generally affects soil C sequestration through changing OM inputs and decomposition19. Our study revealed that aggregate-associated OC was significantly higher in FG field than in MS field. These increases were mainly attributed to the new C derived from root residues inputs and decreased losses of OC associated-aggregate by C mineralization in FG soil49. Generally, tillage can breakdown large aggregates into small aggregates, and thus decrease the formation of soil macro-aggregates41,42. Thus, the lower OC content and stock associated-aggregate in MS field can be attributed to the OC loss resulting from soil erosion, and OM input reduction with tillage disturbance8,30,45.In this study, the effects of cropland conversion on OC content associated-aggregate fractions occurred in the top 20 cm soil layers. In the karst region, approximate 57–89% of crop roots are concentrated in the surface soil layer, which directly affects OM inputs from underground root residues51,52. Meanwhile, tillage practices also happened on top 20 cm soil layer6,28,29. As a result, in soils below 20 cm, little or no tillage disturbance and limited OM inputs resulted in fewer or no distinctly changing levels of OC content associated with aggregate following cropland use change.Cropland use change not only affected the OC stocks in bulk soil, but also affected the OC stocks associated-aggregates (Table 1). The difference of sensitivity of OC associated-aggregate to cropland use change may affect its contribution to bulk soil OC accumulation30,38. In our study, the macro-aggregate fraction was the most important contributor to total OC stock increase, followed by meso-aggregate and micro-aggregate (Fig. 4). This is primarily due to the higher amount and OC content of macro-aggregates. Overall all cropland use types, the OC stock associated with macro-aggregate in FG field was higher than that in other three cropland types regardless of soil depth (Fig. 4). For instance, OC stocks within macro-aggregate accounted for about 85.40%, 77.72% and 97.55% of total soil OC stock at 0–10 cm, 10–20 cm and 20–30 cm, respectively, under the conversion from MS to FG. Thus, the accumulation pattern of bulk soil OC stocks could closely related with changes of OC stocks associated with macro-aggregate under cropland use change.The physical protection of OC in aggregates is regarded as one of the main mechanisms for soil OC accumulation through diminishing soil OC degradation and preventing its interaction with mineral particles53,54. In the present study, OC stock in bulk soil correlated substantially with the OC content-associated aggregate following cropland conversion (Fig. 5). Further analysised revealed that OC stocks in bulk soil was significantly correlated to OC stock associated with macro-aggregate (R2 = 0.83, p  More

Vegetation and land-cover dataTo monitor vegetation at the global scale, we use three datasets: (1) vegetation optical depth (VOD, 0.25°, Ku-Band, daily 1987–201723) (Fig. 1A), (2) AVHRR GIMMSv3g normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI, 1/12°, bi-weekly 1981–201524) (Fig. 1B), and (3) MODIS MOD13 NDVI at 0.05° (16-day, 2000–202125). We correct for spurious values in the NDVI data (e.g., cloud contamination) using the method of Chen et al.43. We resample the VOD data using bi-weekly medians to agree with the NDVI data time sampling.For all three vegetation datasets, we remove seasonality and long-term trends using seasonal trend decomposition by Loess4,44 based on the proposed optimal parameters listed in Cleveland et al.44 (code available on Zenodo45). That is, we use a period of 24 (bi-monthly, 1 year), 47 for the trend smoother (just under 2 years) and 25 for low-pass (just over 1 year). We only use the STL residual—the de-seasoned and de-trended NDVI and VOD time series—in our analysis.To contextualize our understanding of vegetation resilience, we use MODIS MCD12Q1 land cover46 (Fig. 1C) as well as a global average aridity index based on WorldCLIM data31 (Fig. 1D). We exclude from our analysis anthropogenic and non-vegetated landscapes (e.g., permanent snow and ice, desert, urban), as well as any land covers which have changed (e.g., forest to grassland) during the period 2001–2020.Precipitation data and variability metricsTo measure precipitation at the global scale, we rely upon ERA5 data (~30 km, monthly, 1981–2021)33. We process global-scale precipitation metrics using the Google Earth Engine47 platform. We further use the sum of soil moisture from the surface down to 28 cm of depth (first two layers of the ECMWF Integrated Forecasting System soil moisture estimates) to quantify soil moisture means and inter-annual variability33.It is well-documented that vegetation resilience is responsive to the MAP of certain regions1. However, the role of precipitation variability in controlling vegetation resilience has not been well-studied. Here we examine precipitation variability in terms of both intra- and inter-annual patterns. Intra-annual precipitation variability is determined in terms of the Walsh-Lawler Seasonality index32 (Fig. 1D), calculated using monthly data from ERA533.Partly due to the fact that precipitation is non-negative, simple inter-annual variability metrics such as the standard deviation of annual precipitation sums are biased by the absolute precipitation sums; higher precipitation regions have a higher possible range of variability. To limit the influence of MAP, we hence investigate the standard deviation of annual precipitation sums normalized by the MAP, over the period 1981–2021, based on ERA5 data33 (Fig. 1F). We motivate our normalization by MAP with the strong linear relationship between MAP and MAP standard deviation (Supplementary Fig. S2). We further confirm our discovered relationships (Fig. 5) using only those regions where MAP was between the 40 and 60th percentile of MAP for a given land cover (Supplementary Figs. S11,S12). This serves as an additional check that our normalization of MAP standard deviation by MAP does not bias the inferred relationship between vegetation resilience and precipitation variability. Similarly, we generate a normalized inter-annual soil moisture variability by normalizing year-on-year soil moisture standard deviation (Supplementary Fig. S8) by long-term mean soil moisture (Supplementary Fig. S5).Empirical resilience estimationResilience is defined as the ability of a system to recover from perturbations, and can be quantified empirically by the speed of recovery to the previous state16,17. To measure resilience on the global scale, we employ a recently introduced methodology4 which we will briefly summarize in the following.We first identify sharp transitions in the vegetation time series using an 18-point (9 month) moving window to define local slopes throughout the time series48. We then identify slopes above the 99th percentile, and define connected regions as individual perturbations. The highest peak (largest instantaneous slope) within each connected region is then labeled as an individual disturbance.The employed approach does not delineate every rapid transition in a time series due to our reliance on percentiles; our dataset will be inherently biased towards the largest transitions. Furthermore, the same transitions are not guaranteed to be captured for both NDVI and VOD data in each location, as the percentiles will naturally vary between the datasets. Finally, our method will in some cases produce false positives, especially in cases where a given time series does not have any significant rapid transitions. To limit the influence of false positives on our results, we discard any perturbations where the time series does not drop significantly, and where the period before and after a given transition does not pass a two-sample Kolmogorov–Smirnov test4.Finally, using our global set of time-series transitions, we can identify each local vegetation (NDVI or VOD) minima, and use the five following years of data to fit an exponential function to the residual time series, assuming that the recovery after a perturbation to a vegetation state x0 follows approximately the equation$$x(t),approx ,{x}_{0}{e}^{rt}$$
(1)
where x(t) denotes the vegetation state at time t after the perturbation. Negative r indicates that the vegetation system will return to the original stable state at rate ∣r∣. For positive r, the initial perturbation would be amplified, suggesting a non-resilient vegetation state. Our empirical recovery rates are defined as the fitted exponent r, obtained for each detected transition in the NDVI and VOD residual time series. We finally use the coefficient of determination R2 to remove instances where the fitted exponential poorly matches the underlying data4.For the empirical estimate of the restoring rate obtained from fitting an exponential to the recovery after an abrupt negative deviation of VOD or NDVI, abrupt changes in the mean state induced by changing sensors rather than an actual vegetation shift may impact the results. However, all datasets used here are tightly cross-calibrated to eliminate mean-shifts when new instruments are introduced23,24. It is therefore unlikely that changes in the instrumentation of the various datasets unduly influence our empirical estimates of λ.Dynamical system metrics of resilienceThe lag-one autocorrelation (AC1) has previously been proposed to measure the stability of real-world dynamical systems in general, and the resilience of vegetation systems in particular1,19,20,21,49. Based on the concept of critical slowing down, the AC1 has, together with the variance, also been suggested as an early-warning indicator for forthcoming critical transitions50,51. Mathematically, the suitability of the variance and AC1 as resilience measures and early-warning indicators can be motivated as follows4,52,53. First, linearize the system around a given stable state x*:$$dbar{x}=lambda bar{x}dt+sigma dW$$
(2)
for (bar{x}: !!=x-{x}^{*}), assuming a Wiener Process W with standard deviation σ. The dynamics are stable for λ  More

Hoffmann, A. A. & Sgrò, C. M. Nature 470, 479–485 (2011).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Taylor, S. A. & Larson, E. L. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 3, 170–177 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Brauer, C. J. et al. Nat. Clim. Change https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-022-01585-1 (2023).Article 

Google Scholar 
Grinnell, J. Auk 34, 427–433 (1917).Article 

Google Scholar 
Peterson, A. T. et al. Ecological Niches and Geographic Distributions (Princeton Univ. Press, 2011).Wiens, J. A., Stralberg, D., Jongsomjit, D., Howell, C. A. & Snyder, M. A. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106, 19729–19736 (2009).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Aguirre-Liguori, J. A., Ramírez-Barahona, S. & Gaut, B. S. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 5, 1350–1360 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Fitzpatrick, M. C. & Keller, S. R. Ecol. Lett. 18, 1–16 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bay, R. A. et al. Science 359, 83–86 (2018).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Capblancq, T., Fitzpatrick, M. C., Bay, R. A., Exposito-Alonso, M. & Keller, S. R. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 51, 245–269 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Rellstab, C., Dauphin, B. & Exposito‐Alonso, M. Evol. Appl. 14, 1202–1212 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Allendorf, F. W., Leary, R. F., Spruell, P. & Wenburg, J. K. Trends Ecol. Evol. 16, 613–622 (2001).Article 

Google Scholar 
Rhymer, J. M. & Simberloff, D. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 27, 83–109 (1996).Article 

Google Scholar 
Todesco, M. et al. Evol. Appl. 9, 892–908 (2016).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar  More

Davis, K. F., Downs, S. & Gephart, J. A. Towards food supply chain resilience to environmental shocks. Nat. Food 2, 54–65 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lempert, R. J. & Collins, M. T. Managing the risk of uncertain threshold responses: comparison of robust, optimum, and precautionary approaches. Risk Anal. 27, 1009–1026 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
Garnett, P., Doherty, B. & Heron, T. Vulnerability of the United Kingdom’s food supply chains exposed by COVID-19. Nat. Food 1, 315–318 (2020).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Abson, D. J. et al. Leverage points for sustainability transformation. Ambio 46, 30–39 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Westley, F. et al. Tipping toward sustainability: emerging pathways of transformation. Ambio 40, 762–780 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Steffen, W., Broadgate, W., Deutsch, L., Gaffney, O. & Ludwig, C. The trajectory of the Anthropocene: the Great Acceleration. Anthr. Rev. 2, 81–98 (2015).
Google Scholar 
Jouffray, J.-B., Blasiak, R., Norström, A. V., Österblom, H. & Nyström, M. The blue acceleration: the trajectory of human expansion into the ocean. One Earth 2, 43–54 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Adger, W. N., Eakin, H. & Winkels, A. Nested and teleconnected vulnerabilities to environmental change. Front. Ecol. Environ. 7, 150–157 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Nyström, M. et al. Anatomy and resilience of the global production ecosystem. Nature 575, 98–108 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Mason, W. & Watts, D. J. Collaborative learning in networks. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109, 764–769 (2012).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Helbing, D. Globally networked risks and how to respond. Nature 497, 51–59 (2013).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Worm, B. & Paine, R. T. Humans as a hyperkeystone species. Trends Ecol. Evol. 31, 600–607 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Crutzen, P. J. & Stoermer, E. F. in The Future of Nature (eds Robin, L. et al.) 479–490 (Yale Univ. Press, 2017); https://doi.org/10.12987/9780300188479-041Ellis, E. C. Anthropogenic transformation of the terrestrial biosphere. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 369, 1010–1035 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Senevirante, S. I. et al. in Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis (eds Masson-Delmotte, V. et al.) 1513–1766 (IPCC, Cambridge Univ. Press, 2021).Frank, A. B. et al. Dealing with femtorisks in international relations. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 17356–17362 (2014).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Folke, C. et al. Our future in the Anthropocene biosphere. Ambio 50, 834–869 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Walker, B. & Salt, D. Resilience Practice: Building Capacity to Absorb Disturbance and Maintain Function (Island Press/Center for Resource Economics, 2012); https://doi.org/10.5822/978-1-61091-231-0Biggs, R., Schlüter, M. & Schoon, M. L. (eds) Principles for Building Resilience: Sustaining Ecosystem Services in Social–Ecological Systems (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2015); https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316014240Cervantes Saavedra, M. de & Rutherford, J. Don Quixote: The Ingenious Hidalgo de la Mancha (Penguin, 2003).Coronese, M., Lamperti, F., Keller, K., Chiaromonte, F. & Roventini, A. Evidence for sharp increase in the economic damages of extreme natural disasters. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 21450–21455 (2019).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Cottrell, R. S. et al. Food production shocks across land and sea. Nat. Sustain. 2, 130–137 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Elmqvist, T. et al. Response diversity, ecosystem change, and resilience. Front. Ecol. Environ. 1, 488–494 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
Arrow, K. J. & Fisher, A. C. Environmental preservation, uncertainty, and irreversibility. Q. J. Econ. 88, 312–319 (1974).Article 

Google Scholar 
Dixit, A. K. & Pindyck, R. S. Investment under Uncertainty (Princeton Univ. Press, 1994).Markowitz, H. Portfolio selection. J. Finance 7, 77–91 (1952).
Google Scholar 
Sharpe, W. F. Capital asset prices: a theory of market equilibrium under conditions of risk. J. Finance 19, 425–442 (1964).
Google Scholar 
Cifdaloz, O., Regmi, A., Anderies, J. M. & Rodriguez, A. A. Robustness, vulnerability, and adaptive capacity in small-scale social–ecological systems: the Pumpa Irrigation System in Nepal. Ecol. Soc. 15, art39 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Levin, S. A. et al. Governance in the face of extreme events: lessons from evolutionary processes for structuring interventions, and the need to go beyond. Ecosystems 25, 697–711 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Peterson, G., Allen, C. R. & Holling, C. S. Ecological resilience, biodiversity, and scale. Ecosystems 1, 6–18 (1998).Article 

Google Scholar 
Nyström, M. Redundancy and response diversity of functional groups: implications for the resilience of coral reefs. Ambio 35, 30–35 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kummu, M. et al. Interplay of trade and food system resilience: gains on supply diversity over time at the cost of trade independency. Glob. Food Secur. 24, 100360 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hedblom, M., Andersson, E. & Borgström, S. Flexible land-use and undefined governance: from threats to potentials in peri-urban landscape planning. Land Use Policy 63, 523–527 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Haldane, A. Rethinking the Financial Network—Speech by Andy Haldane (Bank of England, 2009); https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/speech/2009/rethinking-the-financial-networkHaldane, A. G. & May, R. M. Systemic risk in banking ecosystems. Nature 469, 351–355 (2011).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Carpenter, S. R., Brock, W. A., Folke, C., van Nes, E. H. & Scheffer, M. Allowing variance may enlarge the safe operating space for exploited ecosystems. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, 14384–14389 (2015).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Mouillot, D., Graham, N. A. J., Villéger, S., Mason, N. W. H. & Bellwood, D. R. A functional approach reveals community responses to disturbances. Trends Ecol. Evol. 28, 167–177 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Leslie, P. & McCabe, J. T. Response diversity and resilience in social–ecological systems. Curr. Anthropol. 54, 114–143 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Biggs, R. et al. Toward principles for enhancing the resilience of ecosystem services. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 37, 421–448 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Anderies, J. M. Managing variance: key policy challenges for the Anthropocene. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, 14402–14403 (2015).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Csete, M. E. & Doyle, J. C. Reverse engineering of biological complexity. Science 295, 1664–1669 (2002).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Carlson, J. M. & Doyle, J. Highly optimized tolerance: robustness and design in complex systems. Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 2529–2532 (2000).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Kitano, H. Biological robustness. Nat. Rev. Genet. 5, 826–837 (2004).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Csete, M. & Doyle, J. Bow ties, metabolism and disease. Trends Biotechnol. 22, 446–450 (2004).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Anderies, J. M., Rodriguez, A. A., Janssen, M. A. & Cifdaloz, O. Panaceas, uncertainty, and the robust control framework in sustainability science. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 104, 15194–15199 (2007).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Rodriguez, A. A., Cifdaloz, O., Anderies, J. M., Janssen, M. A. & Dickeson, J. Confronting management challenges in highly uncertain natural resource systems: a robustness–vulnerability trade-off approach. Environ. Model. Assess. 16, 15–36 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Charpentier, A. Insurability of climate risks. Geneva Pap. Risk Insur. Issues Pract. 33, 91–109 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Alfieri, L., Feyen, L. & Di Baldassarre, G. Increasing flood risk under climate change: a pan-European assessment of the benefits of four adaptation strategies. Climatic Change 136, 507–521 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Isakson, S. R. Derivatives for development? Small-farmer vulnerability and the financialization of climate risk management: small-farmer vulnerability and financialization. J. Agrar. Change 15, 569–580 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Müller, B. & Kreuer, D. Ecologists should care about insurance, too. Trends Ecol. Evol. 31, 1–2 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Walker, B. et al. Looming global-scale failures and missing institutions. Science 325, 1345–1346 (2009).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Berkes, F. et al. Globalization, roving bandits, and marine resources. Science 311, 1557–1558 (2006).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Walker, B. H., Langridge, J. L. & McFarlane, F. Resilience of an Australian savanna grassland to selective and non-selective perturbations. Austral Ecol. 22, 125–135 (1997).Article 

Google Scholar 
Polasky, S. et al. Corridors of clarity: four principles to overcome uncertainty paralysis in the Anthropocene. BioScience 70, 1139–1144 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Engström, G. et al. Carbon pricing and planetary boundaries. Nat. Commun. 11, 4688 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Sun, J. C., Ugolini, S. & Vivier, E. Immunological memory within the innate immune system. EMBO J. https://doi.org/10.1002/embj.201387651 (2014).Vély, F. et al. Evidence of innate lymphoid cell redundancy in humans. Nat. Immunol. 17, 1291–1299 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Grimm, N., Cook, E., Hale, R. & Iwaniec, D. in The Routledge Handbook of Urbanization and Global Environmental Change (eds Seto, K. et al.) Ch. 14 (Routledge, 2015).Jiang, B., Mak, C. N. S., Zhong, H., Larsen, L. & Webster, C. J. From broken windows to perceived routine activities: examining impacts of environmental interventions on perceived safety of urban alleys. Front. Psychol. 9, 2450 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Andersson, E. et al. Urban climate resilience through hybrid infrastructure. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 55, 101158 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Douglas, M. & Wildavsky, A. Risk and Culture: An Essay on the Selection of Technological and Environmental Dangers (Univ. of California Press, 1983).Weber, E. U., Ames, D. R. & Blais, A.-R. ‘How do I choose thee? Let me count the ways’: a textual analysis of similarities and differences in modes of decision-making in China and the United States. Manage. Organ. Rev. 1, 87–118 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kunreuther, H. et al. in Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change (eds Edenhofer, O. et al.) Ch. 2 (IPCC, Cambridge Univ. Press, 2014); https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ipcc_wg3_ar5_chapter2.pdfMeadows, D. H. Thinking in Systems: A Primer (Earthscan, 2009).Nyborg, K. et al. Social norms as solutions. Science 354, 42–43 (2016).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Hall, P. A. & Lamont, M. (eds) Social Resilience in the Neoliberal Era (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2013).Norström, A. V. et al. Principles for knowledge co-production in sustainability research. Nat. Sustain. 3, 182–190 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
United Nations Conference on Trade and Development Review of Maritime Transport 2017 (United Nations, 2017).United Nations Conference on Trade and Development Review of Maritime Transport 2018 (United Nations, 2019).Bailey, R. & Wellesley, L. Chatham House Report 2017: Chokepoints and Vulnerabilities in Global Food Trade (Energy, Environment and Resources Department, Chatham House, The Royal Institute of International Affairs, 2017); https://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/default/files/publications/research/2017-06-27-chokepoints-vulnerabilities-global-food-trade-bailey-wellesley-final.pdfKhoury, C. K. et al. Increasing homogeneity in global food supplies and the implications for food security. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 4001–4006 (2014).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Hendrickson, M. K. Resilience in a concentrated and consolidated food system. J. Environ. Stud. Sci. 5, 418–431 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Öborn, I. et al. Restoring rangelands for nutrition and health for humans and livestock. in The XXIV International Grassland Congress / XI International Rangeland Congress (Sustainable Use of Grassland and Rangeland Resources for Improved Livelihoods) (ed. National Organizing Committee of 2021 IGC/IRC Congress) (Kenya Agricultural and Livestock Research Organization, 2022).Vulnerable Supply Chains—Interim Report (Productivity Commission, Australian Government, 2021); https://www.pc.gov.au/inquiries/completed/supply-chains/interim More

Habitat loss is one of main threats to biodiversity worldwide and in general is perceived as something to be avoided. However, the prevalence of negative effects of forest fragmentation is less clear. Fragmentation creates edges between once-pristine forest and the adjacent non-forest system or systems (for example, agricultural lands, cities or water reservoirs), but the effects of these edges on biodiversity are not always clear. By performing a robust study of the interaction between insect pollinators and flowering plants at forest edges and within the forest, Ren et al.1 add a new piece to this puzzle by showing that forest edges can have a positive buffering effect on interaction networks. More

Srivastava, R. K., Mequanint, F., Chakraborty, A., Panda, R. K. & Halder, D. Augmentation of maize yield by strategic adaptation to cope with climate change for a future period in Eastern India. J. Clean. Prod. 339, 130599 (2022).
Google Scholar 
Pooniya, V. et al. Six years of conservation agriculture and nutrient management in maize–mustard rotation: Impact on soil properties, system productivity and profitability. Field Crops Res. 260, 108002 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Tsimba, R., Edmeades, G. O., Millner, J. P. & Kemp, P. D. The effect of planting date on maize grain yields and yield components. Field Crops Res. 150, 135–144 (2013).
Google Scholar 
Maresma, A., Ballesta, A., Santiveri, F. & Lloveras, J. Sowing date affects maize development and yield in irrigated mediterranean environments. Agriculture 9(3), 67 (2019).
Google Scholar 
Srivastava, R. K., Panda, R. K., Chakraborty, A. & Halder, D. Enhancing grain yield, biomass and nitrogen use efficiency of maize by varying sowing dates and nitrogen rate under rainfed and irrigated conditions. Field Crops Res. 221, 339–349 (2018).
Google Scholar 
Van Roekel, R. J. & Coulter, J. A. Agronomic responses of corn hybrids to row width and plant density. Agronomy J. 104(3), 612–620 (2012).
Google Scholar 
Santiveri, F., Royo, C. & Romagosa, I. Growth and yield responses of spring and winter triticale cultivated under Mediterranean conditions. Eur. J. Agron. 20(3), 281–292 (2004).
Google Scholar 
Masoni, A., Ercoli, L., Mariotti, M. & Arduini, I. Post-anthesis accumulation and remobilization of dry matter, nitrogen and phosphorus in durum wheat as affected by soil type. Eur. J. Agron. 26(3), 179–186 (2007).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Yang, W., Peng, S., Dionisio-Sese, M. L., Laza, R. C. & Visperas, R. M. Grain filling duration, a crucial determinant of genotypic variation of grain yield in field-grown tropical irrigated rice. Field Crops Res. 105, 221–227 (2008).
Google Scholar 
Wei, H. et al. Comparisons of grain yield and nutrient accumulation and translocation in high-yielding japonica/indica hybrids, indica hybrids, and japonica conventional varieties. Field Crops Res. 204, 101–109 (2017).
Google Scholar 
Wu, H. et al. Effects of post-anthesis nitrogen uptake and translocation on photosynthetic production and rice yield. Sci. Rep. 8(1), 1–11 (2018).ADS 

Google Scholar 
Laza, M. R., Peng, S., Akita, S. & Saka, H. Contribution of biomass partitioning and translocation to grain yield under sub-optimum growing conditions in irrigated rice. Plant Prod. Sci. 6(1), 28–35 (2003).
Google Scholar 
Gao, H. et al. Intercropping modulates the accumulation and translocation of dry matter and nitrogen in maize and peanut. Field Crops Res. 284, 108561 (2022).
Google Scholar 
Yang, Y. et al. Solar radiation effects on dry matter accumulations and transfer in maize. Front. Plant Sci. 12, 1927 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Jamshidi, A. & Javanmard, H. R. Evaluation of barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) genotypes for salinity tolerance under field conditions using the stress indices. Ain Shams Eng. J. 9(4), 2093–2099 (2018).
Google Scholar 
Tyagi, B. S. et al. Identification of wheat cultivars for low nitrogen tolerance using multivariable screening approaches. Agronomy 10(3), 417 (2020).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Fischer, R. A. & Maurer, R. Drought resistance in spring wheat cultivars. I. Grain yield responses. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 29(5), 897–912 (1978).
Google Scholar 
Fernandez, G. C. Effective selection criteria for assessing plant stress tolerance. In Proceeding of the International Symposium on Adaptation of Vegetables and other Food Crops in Temperature and Water Stress, Aug. 13–16, Shanhua, Taiwan. 257–270 (1992).Bouslama, M. & Schapaugh, W. T. Jr. Stress tolerance in soybeans. I. Evaluation of three screening techniques for heat and drought tolerance 1. Crop sci. 24(5), 933–937 (1984).
Google Scholar 
Ciampitti, I. A. & Vyn, T. J. Grain nitrogen source changes over time in maize: A review. Crop Sci. 53(2), 366–377 (2013).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Chen, Y. et al. Characterization of the plant traits contributed to high grain yield and high grain nitrogen concentration in maize. Field Crops Res. 159, 1–9 (2014).
Google Scholar 
Mi, G. et al. Nitrogen uptake and remobilization in maize hybrids differing in leaf senescence. J. plant nutr. 26(1), 237–247 (2003).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Tollenaar, M. & Lee, E. A. Dissection of physiological processes underlying grain yield in maize by examining genetic improvement and heterosis. Maydica 51(2), 399 (2006).
Google Scholar 
Samonte, S. O. P. et al. Nitrogen utilization efficiency: Relationships with grain yield, grain protein, and yield-related traits in rice. Agronomy J. 98(1), 168–176 (2006).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Qiao, J., Yang, L., Yan, T., Xue, F. & Zhao, D. Nitrogen fertilizer reduction in rice production for two consecutive years in the Taihu Lake area. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 146(1), 103–112 (2012).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Marschner, P. Marschner’s Mineral Nutrition of Higher Plants 3rd edn. (Academic Press, 2012).
Google Scholar 
Ning, P., Li, S., Yu, P., Zhang, Y. & Li, C. Post-silking accumulation and partitioning of dry matter, nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium in maize varieties differing in leaf longevity. Field Crops Res. 144, 19–27 (2013).
Google Scholar 
Hawkesford, M. et al. Functions of macronutrients. In Marschners Mineral Nutrition of Higher Plants 3rd edn (ed. Marschner, P.) 178–189 (Academic Press, 2012).
Google Scholar 
Palta, J. A. et al. Large root systems: Are they useful in adapting wheat to dry environments?. Funct. Plant Biol. 38(5), 347–354 (2011).
Google Scholar 
Pooniya, V., Palta, J. A., Chen, Y., Delhaize, E. & Siddique, K. H. Impact of the TaMATE1B gene on above and below-ground growth of durum wheat grown on an acid and Al3+-toxic soil. Plant Soil 447(1), 73–84 (2020).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Bonelli, L. E., Monzon, J. P., Cerrudo, A., Rizzalli, R. H. & Andrade, F. H. Maize grain yield components and source-sink relationship as affected by the delay in sowing date. Field Crops Res. 198, 215–225 (2016).
Google Scholar 
Sorensen, I., Stone, P. & Rogers, B. Effect of sowing time on yield of a short and a long season maize hybrid. Proc. Agron. Soc. NZ 30, 63–66 (2000).
Google Scholar 
Tsimba, R., Edmeades, G. O., Millner, J. P. & Kemp, P. D. The effect of planting date on maize: Phenology, thermal time durations and growth rates in a cool temperate climate. Field Crops Res. 150, 145–155 (2013).
Google Scholar 
Zhou, B. et al. Maize kernel weight responses to sowing date-associated variation in weather conditions. Crop J. 5(1), 43–51 (2017).
Google Scholar 
Cirilo, A. G. & Andrade, F. H. Sowing date and maize productivity: I. Crop growth and dry matter partitioning. Crop Sci. 34(4), 1039–1043 (1994).
Google Scholar 
Shi, Y. et al. Tillage practices affect dry matter accumulation and grain yield in winter wheat in the North China Plain. Soil Till. Res. 160, 73–81 (2016).
Google Scholar 
He, P., Zhou, W. & Jin, J. Carbon and nitrogen metabolism related to grain formation in two different senescent types of maize. J. Plant Nutrit. 27(2), 295–311 (2004).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Pommel, B. et al. Carbon and nitrogen allocation and grain filling in three maize hybrids differing in leaf senescence. Eur. J. Agron. 24(3), 203–211 (2006).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Clarke, J. M., Campbell, C. A., Cutforth, H. W., DePauw, R. M. & Winkleman, G. E. Nitrogen and phosphorus uptake, translocation, and utilization efficiency of wheat in relation to environment and cultivar yield and protein levels. Can. J. Plant Sci. 70(4), 965–977 (1990).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Mardeh, A. S. S., Ahmadi, A., Poustini, K. & Mohammadi, V. Evaluation of drought resistance indices under various environmental conditions. Field Crops Res. 98(2–3), 222–229 (2006).
Google Scholar 
Naderi, A., Majidi-Harvan, E., Hashemi-Dezfoli, A., Rezaei, A. & Normohamadi, G. Analysis of efficiency of drought tolerance indices in crop plants and introduction of a new criteria. Seed Plant 15(4), 390–402 (1999).
Google Scholar 
Zeng, W. et al. Comparative proteomics analysis of the seedling root response of drought-sensitive and drought-tolerant maize varieties to drought stress. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 20(11), 2793 (2019).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Hajibabaei, M. & Azizi, F. Evaluation of drought tolerance indices in some new hybrids of corn. Electron. J. Crop Prod. 3, 139–155 (2011).
Google Scholar 
Zhao, J. et al. Yield and water use of drought-tolerant maize hybrids in a semiarid environment. Field Crops Res. 216, 1–9 (2018).
Google Scholar 
Fageria, N. K. Nitrogen harvest index and its association with crop yields. J. Plant Nutri. 37(6), 795–810 (2014).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Raghuram, N., Sachdev, M. S. & Abrol, Y. P. Towards an integrative understanding of reactive nitrogen. In Agricultural Nitrogen Use & Its Environmental Implications (eds Abrol, Y. P. et al.) 1–6 (I.K. International Publishing House Pvt. Ltd., 2007).
Google Scholar 
Baligar, V. C., Fageria, N. K. & He, Z. L. Nutrient use efficiency in plants. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 32(7–8), 921–950 (2001).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Foulkes, M. J. et al. Identifying traits to improve the nitrogen economy of wheat: Recent advances and future prospects. Field Crops Res. 114(3), 329–342 (2009).
Google Scholar 
Gaju, O. et al. Identification of traits to improve the nitrogen-use efficiency of wheat genotypes. Field Crops Res. 123(2), 139–152 (2011).
Google Scholar 
Ehdaie, B. A. H. M. A. N., Mohammadi, S. A. & Nouraein, M. QTLs for root traits at mid-tillering and for root and shoot traits at maturity in a RIL population of spring bread wheat grown under well-watered conditions. Euphytica 211(1), 17–38 (2016).
Google Scholar 
Piper, C. S. Soil and Plant Analysis (Adelaide University, 1950).
Google Scholar 
Subbiah, B. V. & Asija, G. L. A rapid method for the estimation of nitrogen in soil. Curr. Sci. 26, 259–260 (1956).
Google Scholar 
Olsen, S. R., Cole, C. V., Watanabe, F. S. & Dean, L. A. Estimation of Available Phosphorus in Soil by Extraction with Sodium Carbonate (USDA, 1954).
Google Scholar 
Hanway, J. J. & Heidel, H. Soil Analysis Methods as used in Iowa State College Soil Testing Laboratory, Bulletin 57 (Iowa State College of Agriculture, 1952).
Google Scholar 
Walkley, A. L. & Black, I. A. An examination of the Degtjareff method for determination of soil organic matter and a proposed modification of the chromic acid titration method. Soil Sci. 37, 29–38 (1934).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Ntanos, D. A. & Koutroubas, S. D. Dry matter and N accumulation and translocation for Indica and Japonica rice under Mediterranean conditions. Field Crops Res. 74, 93–101 (2002).
Google Scholar 
Prasad, R., Shivay, Y. S., Kumar, D., & Sharma, S. N. Learning by doing exercises in soil fertility (A practical manual for soil fertility). Division of Agronomy, Indian Agricultural Research Institute, India, (2006).Jiang, L. et al. Characterizing physiological N-use efficiency as influenced by nitrogen management in three rice cultivars. Field Crops Res. 88, 239–250 (2004).
Google Scholar 
Dai, X. et al. Managing the seeding rate to improve nitrogen-use efficiency of winter wheat. Field Crops Res. 154, 100–109 (2013).
Google Scholar 
Liu, W. et al. Root growth, water and nitrogen use efficiencies in winter wheat under different irrigation and nitrogen regimes in North China Plain. Front. Plant Sci. 9, 1798 (2018).
Google Scholar 
Gomez, K. A. & Gomez, A. A. Statistical Procedures for Agricultural Research 2nd edn, 180–209 (Wiley, 1984).
Google Scholar  More

Millard, J. et al. Global effects of land-use intensity on local pollinator biodiversity. Nat. Commun. 12, 2902 (2021).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Haddad, N. M. et al. Habitat fragmentation and its lasting impact on Earth’s ecosystems. Sci. Adv. 1, e1500052 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Valiente-Banuet, A. et al. Beyond species loss: the extinction of ecological interactions in a changing world. Funct. Ecol. 29, 299–307 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Rybicki, J., Abrego, N. & Ovaskainen, O. Habitat fragmentation and species diversity in competitive communities. Ecol. Lett. 23, 506–517 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Chase, J. M., Blowes, S. A., Knight, T. M., Gerstner, K. & May, F. Ecosystem decay exacerbates biodiversity loss with habitat loss. Nature 584, 238–243 (2020).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Ewers, R. M. & Didham, R. K. Confounding factors in the detection of species responses to habitat fragmentation. Biol. Rev. 81, 117–142 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
Didham, R. K. Ecological consequences of habitat fragmentation. In Encyclopedia of Life Sciences (ed Jansson, R.), 61, 1–39 (Wiley, UK2010).Aizen, M. A., Sabatino, M. & Tylianakis, J. M. Specialization and rarity predict nonrandom loss of interactions from mutualist networks. Science 335, 1486–1489 (2012).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Spiesman, B. J. & Inouye, B. D. Habitat loss alters the architecture of plant-pollinator interaction networks. Ecology 94, 2688–2696 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Aizen, M. A. et al. The phylogenetic structure of plant-pollinator networks increases with habitat size and isolation. Ecol. Lett. 19, 29–36 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Emer, C. et al. Seed-dispersal interactions in fragmented landscapes-a metanetwork approach. Ecol. Lett. 21, 484–493 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Fortuna, M. A. & Bascompte, J. Habitat loss and the structure of plant-animal mutualistic networks. Ecol. Lett. 9, 278–283 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
Grass, I., Jauker, B., Steffan-Dewenter, 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).Article 

Google Scholar 
Glenn R. Matlack & John A. Litvaitis. Forest edges. In Maintaining Biodiversity in Forest Ecosystems (ed Hunter, M.) 6, 210–233 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1999).Hadley, A. S. & Betts, M. G. The effects of landscape fragmentation on pollination dynamics: absence of evidence not evidence of absence. Biol. Rev. 87, 526–544 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ibanez, I., Katz, D. S. W., Peltier, D., Wolf, S. M. & Barrie, B. T. C. Assessing the integrated effects of landscape fragmentation on plants and plant communities: the challenge of multiprocess-multiresponse dynamics. J. Ecol. 102, 882–895 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Morreale, L. L., Thompson, J. R., Tang, X., Reinmann, A. B. & Hutyra, L. R. Elevated growth and biomass along temperate forest edges. Nat. Commun. 12, 7181 (2021).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Martinez-Ramos, M., Alvarez-Buylla, E. & Sarukhan, J. Tree demography and gap dynamics in a tropical rain forest. Ecology 70, 555–558 (1989).Article 

Google Scholar 
Yamamoto, S. I. Forest gap dynamics and tree regeneration. J. For. Res. 5, 223–229 (2000).Article 

Google Scholar 
Schnitzer, S. A. & Carson, W. P. Treefall gaps and the maintenance of species diversity in a tropical forest. Ecology 82, 913–919 (2001).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kricher, J. A Shifting Mosaic: Rain Forest Development and Dynamics. In Tropical Ecology 6, 188–226 (Princeton Univ. Press, 2011).Gayer, C. et al. Flowering fields, organic farming and edge habitats promote diversity of plants and arthropods on arable land. J. Appl. Ecol. 58, 1155–1166 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bailey, S. et al. Distance from forest edge affects bee pollinators in oilseed rape fields. Ecol. Evol. 4, 370–380 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Thebault, E. & Fontaine, C. Stability of ecological communities and the architecture of mutualistic and trophic networks. Science 329, 853–856 (2010).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Hagen, M. et al. Biodiversity, species interactions and ecological networks in a fragmented world. Adv. Ecol. Res. 46, 89–210 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Traveset, A., Castro-Urgal, R., Rotllan-Puig, X. & Lazaro, A. Effects of habitat loss on the plant-flower visitor network structure of a dune community. Oikos 127, 45–55 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Rezende, E. L., Lavabre, J. E., Guimaraes, P. R., Jordano, P. & Bascompte, J. Non-random coextinctions in phylogenetically structured mutualistic networks. Nature 448, 925–928 (2007).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Staddon, P., Lindo, Z., Crittenden, P. D., Gilbert, F. & Gonzalez, A. Connectivity, non-random extinction and ecosystem function in experimental metacommunities. Ecol. Lett. 13, 543–552 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wardle, D. A., Bardgett, R. D., Callaway, R. M. & Van der Putten, W. H. Terrestrial ecosystem responses to species gains and losses. Science 332, 1273–1277 (2011).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Sargent, R. D. & Ackerly, D. D. Plant-pollinator interactions and the assembly of plant communities. Trends Ecol. Evol. 23, 123–130 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bastolla, U. et al. The architecture of mutualistic networks minimizes competition and increases biodiversity. Nature 458, 1018–1020 (2009).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Rohr, R. P., Saavedra, S. & Bascompte, J. On the structural stability of mutualistic systems. Science 345, 1253497 (2014).Article 

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

Google Scholar 
Pawar, S. Why are plant-pollinator networks nested? Science 345, 383–383 (2014).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Kaiser-Bunbury, C. N., Muff, S., Memmott, J., Muller, C. B. & Caflisch, A. The robustness of pollination networks to the loss of species and interactions: a quantitative approach incorporating pollinator behaviour. Ecol. Lett. 13, 442–452 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Evans, D. M., Pocock, M. J. O. & Memmott, J. The robustness of a network of ecological networks to habitat loss. Ecol. Lett. 16, 844–852 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ponisio, L. C., Gaiarsa, M. P. & Kremen, C. Opportunistic attachment assembles plant-pollinator networks. Ecol. Lett. 20, 1261–1272 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wilson, M. C. et al. Habitat fragmentation and biodiversity conservation: key findings and future challenges. Landsc. Ecol. 31, 219–227 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Zhong, L., Didham, R. K., Liu, J., Jin, Y. & Yu, M. Community re-assembly and divergence of woody plant traits in an island-mainland system after more than 50 years of regeneration. Divers. Distrib. 27, 1435–1448 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Liu, J. et al. The asymmetric relationships of the distribution of conspecific saplings and adults in forest fragments. J. Plant Ecol. 13, 398–404 (2020).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Ewers, R. M., Bartlam, S. & Didham, R. K. Altered species interactions at forest edges: contrasting edge effects on bumble bees and their phoretic mite loads in temperate forest remnants. Insect Conserv. Divers. 6, 598–606 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wardhaugh, C. W. The spatial and temporal distributions of arthropods in forest canopies: uniting disparate patterns with hypotheses for specialisation. Biol. Rev. Camb. Philos. Soc. 89, 1021–1041 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lowman, M. Life in the treetops – an overview of forest canopy science and its future directions. Plants People Planet 3, 16–21 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Nakamura, A. et al. Forests and their canopies: achievements and horizons in canopy science. Trends Ecol. Evol. 32, 438–451 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lennartsson, T. Extinction thresholds and disrupted plant-pollinator interactions in fragmented plant populations. Ecology 83, 3060–3072 (2002).
Google Scholar 
Aguilar, R., Ashworth, L., Galetto, L. & Aizen, M. A. Plant reproductive susceptibility to habitat fragmentation: review and synthesis through a meta-analysis. Ecol. Lett. 9, 968–980 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kremen, C. et al. Pollination and other ecosystem services produced by mobile organisms: a conceptual framework for the effects of land-use change. Ecol. Lett. 10, 299–314 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
Goulson, D., Nicholls, E., Botias, C. & Rotheray, E. L. Bee declines driven by combined stress from parasites, pesticides, and lack of flowers. Science 347, 1255957 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gathmann, A. & Tscharntke, T. Foraging ranges of solitary bees. J. Anim. Ecol. 71, 757–764 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
Winfree, R., Bartomeus, I. & Cariveau, D. P. Native pollinators in anthropogenic habitats. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 42, 1–22 (2011).
Google Scholar 
Torné-Noguera, A. et al. Determinants of spatial distribution in a bee community: nesting resources, flower resources, and body size. PLoS ONE 9, e97255 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Roswell, M., Dushoff, J. & Winfree, R. A conceptual guide to measuring species diversity. Oikos 130, 321–338 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Schoereder, J. H. et al. Should we use proportional sampling for species-area studies? J. Biogeogr. 31, 1219–1226 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
Jordano, P. Patterns of mutualistic interactions in pollination and seed dispersal: connectance, dependence asymmetries, and coevolution. Am. Nat. 129, 657–677 (1987).Article 

Google Scholar 
Devoto, M., Medan, D. & Montaldo, N. H. Patterns of interaction between plants and pollinators along an environmental gradient. Oikos 109, 461–472 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
Petanidou, T., Kallimanis, A. S., Tzanopoulos, J., Sgardelis, S. P. & Pantis, J. D. Long-term observation of a pollination network: fluctuation in species and interactions, relative invariance of network structure and implications for estimates of specialization. Ecol. Lett. 11, 564–575 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Brodie, J. F. et al. Secondary extinctions of biodiversity. Trends Ecol. Evol. 29, 664–672 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Vazquez, D. P. & Aizen, M. A. Asymmetric specialization: a pervasive feature of plant-pollinator interactions. Ecology 85, 1251–1257 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
Memmott, J., Waser, N. M. & Price, M. V. Tolerance of pollination networks to species extinctions. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 271, 2605–2611 (2004).
Google Scholar 
Malhi, Y., Gardner, T. A., Goldsmith, G. R., Silman, M. R. & Zelazowski, P. Tropical forests in the Anthropocene. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 39, 125–159 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lewis, S. L., Edwards, D. P. & Galbraith, D. Increasing human dominance of tropical forests. Science 349, 827–832 (2015).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Fletcher, R. J. Jr et al. Is habitat fragmentation good for biodiversity? Biol. Conserv. 226, 9–15 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ren, P., Si, X. & Ding, P. Stable species and interactions in plant-pollinator networks deviate from core position in fragmented habitats. Ecography 2022, e06102 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Fortuna, M. A. et al. Nestedness versus modularity in ecological networks: two sides of the same coin? J. Anim. Ecol. 79, 811–817 (2010).
Google Scholar 
Bascompte, J., Jordano, P., Melian, C. J. & Olesen, J. M. The nested assembly of plant-animal mutualistic networks. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 100, 9383–9387 (2003).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Almeida-Neto, M., Guimaraes, P., Guimaraes, P. R. Jr, Loyola, R. D. & Ulrich, W. A consistent metric for nestedness analysis in ecological systems: reconciling concept and measurement. Oikos 117, 1227–1239 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ulrich, W., Almeida-Neto, M. & Gotelli, N. J. A consumer’s guide to nestedness analysis. Oikos 118, 3–17 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Dicks, L. V., Corbet, S. A. & Pywell, R. F. Compartmentalization in plant-insect flower visitor webs. J. Anim. Ecol. 71, 32–43 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
Beckett, S. J. Improved community detection in weighted bipartite networks. R. Soc. Open Sci. 3, 140536 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Oksanen, J. et al. vegan: Community Ecology Package. R package version 2.5-7 (2020). https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=veganDormann, C. F. et al. bipartite: Visualising Bipartite Networks and Calculating Some (Ecological) Indices. R package version 2.16 (2021). https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=bipartitePocock, M. J. O., Evans, D. M. & Memmott, J. The robustness and restoration of a network of ecological networks. Science 335, 973–977 (2012).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Scherber, C. et al. Bottom-up effects of plant diversity on multitrophic interactions in a biodiversity experiment. Nature 468, 553–556 (2010).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Schleuning, M. et al. Ecological networks are more sensitive to plant than to animal extinction under climate change. Nat. Commun. 7, 13965 (2016).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Shipley, B. Confirmatory path analysis in a generalized multilevel context. Ecology 90, 363–368 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
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 
Grace, J. B., Scheiner, S. M. & Schoolmaster, D. R. Jr. Structural equation modeling: building and evaluating causal models. In Ecological Statistics: From Principles to Applications (eds Fox, G. A. et al.), 8, 168–199 (Oxford Univ. Press, 2015).Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B. & Walker, S. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J. Stat. Softw. 67, 1–48 (2014).
Google Scholar 
Shipley, B. The AIC model selection method applied to path analytic models compared using a d-separation test. Ecology 94, 560–564 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Murphy, M. semEff: Automatic Calculation of Effects for Piecewise Structural Equation Models. R package version 0.6.0 (2021). https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=semEffDudgeon, P. A comparative investigation of confidence intervals for independent variables in linear regression. Multivar. Behav. Res. 51, 139–153 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gotelli, N. J. & Graves, G. R. Null Models in Ecology (Smithsonian Inst. Press, 1996).Jung, V., Violle, C., Mondy, C., Hoffmann, L. & Muller, S. Intraspecific variability and trait-based community assembly. J. Ecol. 98, 1134–1140 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2020). More