Ecology

Muller, Z. et al. Giraffa camelopardalis. The IUCN red list of threatened species 2016:e.T9194A109326950 (2018).Oconnor, D. et al. Updated geographic range maps for giraffe, Giraffa spp., throughout sub-Saharan Africa, and implications of changing distributions for conservation. Mamm. Rev. 49, 285–299. https://doi.org/10.1111/mam.12165 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Brown, M. B. et al. Conservation status of giraffe: Evaluating contemporary distribution and abundance with evolving taxonomic perspectives. Ref. Module Earth Syst. Environ. Sci. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-821139-7.00139-2 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Dunn, M. E. et al. Investigating the international and pan-African trade in giraffe parts and derivatives. Conserv. Sci. Pract. 3, e390. https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.390 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hassanin, A. et al. Mitochondrial DNA variability in Giraffa camelopardalis: Consequences for taxonomy, phylogeography and conservation of giraffes in West and Central Africa. C.R. Biol. 330, 265–274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crvi.2007.02.008 (2007).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Groves, C. & Grubb, P. Ungulate Taxonomy (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2011).Book 

Google Scholar 
Fennessy, J. et al. Multi-locus analyses reveal four giraffe species instead of one. Curr. Biol. 26, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2016.07.036 (2016).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Winter, S., Fennessy, J. & Janke, A. Limited introgression supports division of giraffe into four species. Ecol. Evol. 8, 10156–10165. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.4490 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bercovitch, F. B. Giraffe taxonomy, geographic distribution, and conservation. Afr. J. Ecol. 58, 150–158. https://doi.org/10.1111/aje.12741 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Petzold, A. & Hassanin, A. A comparative approach for species delimitation based on multiple methods of multi-locus DNA sequence analysis: A case study of the genus Giraffa (Mammalia, Cetartiodactyla). PLoS ONE 15, e0217956. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0217956 (2020).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Petzold, A. et al. First insights into past biodiversity of giraffes based on mitochondrial sequences from museum specimens. Eur. J. Taxon. 703, L57-63. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0217956 (2020).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Coimbra, R. T. F. et al. Whole-genome analysis of giraffe supports four distinct species. Curr. Biol. 31, 2929-2938.e5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2021.04.033 (2021).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Muneza, A. B. et al. Giraffa camelopardalis ssp. reticulata. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2018:e.T88420717A88420720 (2018).Miller, M. F. Dispersal of Acacia seeds by ungulates and ostriches in an African Savanna. J. Trop. Ecol. 12, 345–356. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266467400009548 (1996).Article 

Google Scholar 
Palmer, T. M. et al. Breakdown of an ant-plant mutualism follows the loss of large herbivores from an African savanna. Science 319, 192–195. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1151579 (2008).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Kalema, G. Investigation of a skin disease in giraffe in Murchison Falls National Park. Report Submitted to Uganda National Park. Uganda National Parks. Kampala, Uganda (1996).Muneza, A. B. et al. Regional variation of the manifestation, prevalence, and severity of giraffe skin disease: A review of an emerging disease in wild and captive giraffe populations. Biol. Conserv. 198, 145–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2016.04.014 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Epaphras, A. M., Karimuribo, E. D., Mpanduji, D. G. & Meing’ataki, G. E. Prevalence, disease description and epidemiological factors of a novel skin disease in giraffes (Giraffa camelopardalis) in Ruaha National Park, Tanzania. Res. Opin. Anim. Vet. Sci. 2, 60–65 (2012).
Google Scholar 
Lee, D. E. & Bond, M. L. The occurrence and prevalence of giraffe skin disease in protected areas of northern Tanzania. J. Wildl. Dis. 52, 753–755. https://doi.org/10.7589/2015-09-24 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Muneza, A. B. et al. Examining disease prevalence for species of conservation concern using non-invasive spatial capture–recapture techniques. J. Appl. Ecol. 54, 709–717. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12796 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Brown, M. Murchison falls giraffe project: Field report. Giraffid 9, 5–10 (2015).
Google Scholar 
Muneza, A. B. et al. Quantifying the severity of an emerging skin disease affecting giraffe populations using photogrammetry analysis of camera trap data. J. Wildl. Dis. 55, 770–781. https://doi.org/10.7589/2018-06-149 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Han, S. et al. Giraffe skin disease: Clinicopathologic characterization of cutaneous filariasis in the critically endangered Nubian giraffe (Giraffa camelopardalis camelopardalis). Vet. Pathol. https://doi.org/10.1177/03009858221082606 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Whittier, C. A. et al. Cutaneous filariasis in free-ranging Rothschild’s giraffes (Giraffa Camelopardalis rothschildi) in Uganda. J. Wildl. Dis. 56, 1–5. https://doi.org/10.7589/2018-09-212 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pellew, R. Food consumption and energy budgets of the giraffe. J. Appl. Ecol. 21, 141–159. https://doi.org/10.2307/2403043 (1984).Article 

Google Scholar 
Strauss, M. K. L. & Packer, C. Using claw marks to study lion predation on giraffes of the Serengeti. J. Zool. 289, 134–142. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7998.2012.00972.x (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Muneza, A. B. et al. Exploring the connections between giraffe skin disease and lion predation. J. Zool. https://doi.org/10.1111/jzo.12930 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lindsey, P. A. et al. The bushmeat trade in African savannas: Impacts, drivers, and possible solutions. Biol. Conserv. 160, 80–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2012.12.020 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Becker, M. et al. Evaluating wire-snare poaching trends and the impacts of by-catch on elephants and large carnivores. Biol. Conserv. 158, 26–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2012.08.017 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Mudumba, T., Jingo, S., Heit, D. & Montgomery, R. A. The landscape configuration and lethality of snare poaching of sympatric guilds of large carnivores and ungulates. Afr. J. Ecol. 59, 51–62. https://doi.org/10.1111/aje.12781 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Strauss, M. K. L., Kilewo, M., Rentsch, D. & Packer, C. Food supply and poaching limit giraffe abundance in the Serengeti. Popul. Ecol. 57, 505–516. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10144-015-0499-9 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Munn, J. Effects of injury on the locomotion of free-ranging chimpanzees in the Budongo Forest Reserve, Uganda. In Primates of Western Uganda: Developments in Primatology: Progress and Prospects (eds. Newton-Fisher, N. E., Notman, H., Paterson, J. D., & Reynolds, V.) 259–280 (Springer, 2006).Yersin, H., Asiimwe, C., Voordouw, M. J. & Zuberbühler, K. Impact of snare injuries on parasite prevalence in wild chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). Int. J. Primatol. 38, 21–30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10764-016-9941-x (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Dagg, A. I. Gaits of the giraffe and okapi. J. Mammal. 41, 282–282. https://doi.org/10.2307/1376381 (1960).Article 

Google Scholar 
Dagg, A. I. The role of the neck in the movements of the giraffe. J. Mammal. 43, 88–97. https://doi.org/10.2307/1376883 (1962).Article 

Google Scholar 
Dagg, A. I. & Vos, A. D. The walking gaits of some species of Pecora. J. Zool. 155, 103–110. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7998.1968.tb03031.x (1968).Article 

Google Scholar 
Alexander, R. M. N., Langman, V. A. & Jayes, A. S. Fast locomotion of some African ungulates. J. Zool. 183, 291–300. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7998.1977.tb04188.x (1977).Article 

Google Scholar 
Basu, C., Deacon, F., Hutchinson, J. R. & Wilson, A. M. The running kinematics of free-roaming giraffes, measured using a low cost unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV). PeerJ 7, e6312. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.6312 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Basu, C., Wilson, A. M. & Hutchinson, J. R. The locomotor kinematics and ground reaction forces of walking giraffes. J. Exp. Biol. 222, jeb159277. https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.159277 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hildebrand, M. The adaptive significance of tetrapod gait selection. Am. Zool. 20, 255–267. https://doi.org/10.1093/icb/20.1.255 (1980).Article 

Google Scholar 
Flower, F. C., Sanderson, D. J. & Weary, D. M. Hoof pathologies influence kinematic measures of dairy cow gait. J. Dairy Sci. 88, 3166–3173. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.s0022-0302(05)73000-9 (2005).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Brown, M. B., Bolger, D. T. & Fennessy, J. All the eggs in one basket: A countrywide assessment of current and historical giraffe population distribution in Uganda. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 19, e00612. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2019.e00612 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Foster, J. B. The giraffe of Nairobi National Park: Home range, sex ratios, the herd, and food. Afr. J. Ecol. 4, 139–148. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2028.1966.tb00889.x (1966).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bond, M. L., Strauss, M. K. L. & Lee, D. E. Soil correlates and mortality from giraffe skin disease in Tanzania. J. Wildl. Dis. 52, 953–958. https://doi.org/10.7589/2016-02-047 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Dunham, N. T., McNamara, A., Shapiro, L., Hieronymus, T. & Young, J. W. A user’s guide for the quantitative analysis of substrate characteristics and locomotor kinematics in free-ranging primates. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 167, 569–584. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.23686 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Rueden, C. T. et al. Imagej 2: Imagej for the next generation of scientific image data. BMC Bioinform. 18, 529. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12859-017-1934-z (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Cartmill, M., Lemelin, P. & Schmitt, D. Support polygons and symmetrical gaits in mammals. Zool. J. Linn. Soc. 136, 401–420. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1096-3642.2002.00038.x (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hildebrand, M. Analysis of the symmetrical gaits of tetrapods. Folia Biotheoretica 6, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.2307/1379571 (1966).Article 

Google Scholar 
Shapiro, L. J. & Young, J. W. Kinematics of quadrupedal locomotion in sugar gliders (Petaurus breviceps): Effects of age and substrate size. J. Exp. Biol. 215, 480–496. https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.062588 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Shapiro, L. J., Young, J. W. & VandeBerg, J. L. Body size and the small branch niche: Using marsupial ontogeny to model primate locomotor evolution. J. Hum. Evol. 68, 14–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2013.12.006 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Dunham, N. T., McNamara, A., Shapiro, L., Phelps, T. & Young, J. W. Asymmetrical gait kinematics of free-ranging callitrichines in response to changes in substrate diameter, orientation, and displacement. J. Exp. Biol. 223, jeb217562. https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.217562 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Robinson, R., Herzog, W. & Nigg, B. Use of force platform variables to quantify the effects of chiropractic manipulation on gait symmetry. J. Manipulative Physiol. Ther. 10, 172–176 (1987).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Vanden Hole, C. et al. How innate is locomotion in precocial animals? A study on the early development of spatiotemporal gait variables and gait symmetry in piglets. J. Exp. Biol. 220, 2706–2716. https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.157693 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Jacobs, B. Y., Kloefkorn, H. E. & Allen, K. D. Gait analysis methods for rodent models of osteoarthritis. Curr. Pain Headache Rep. 18, 456–475. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11916-014-0456-x (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pfau, T., Spence, A., Starke, S., Ferrari, M. & Wilson, A. Modern riding style improves horse racing times. Science 325, 289–289. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1174605 (2009).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2019). http://www.R-project.org/.Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P. B. & Christensen, R. H. B. LmerTest package: Tests in linear mixed effects models. J. Stat. Softw. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v082.i13 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Length, R. emmeans: Estimated marginal means, aka least‐squares means. R package version 0.9. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=emmeans (2017).Benjamini, Y. & Hochberg, Y. Controlling the false discovery rate: A practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. B (Methodol.) 57, 289–300. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2517-6161.1995.tb02031.x (1995).Article 
MathSciNet 
MATH 

Google Scholar 
Merkens, H. W. & Schamhardt, H. C. Evaluation of equine locomotion during different degrees of experimentally induced lameness I: Lameness model and quantification of ground reaction force patterns of the limbs. Equine Vet. J. 20, 99–106. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2042-3306.1988.tb04655.x (1988).Article 

Google Scholar 
Fanchon, L. & Grandjean, D. Accuracy of asymmetry indices of ground reaction forces for diagnosis of hind limb lameness in dogs. Am. J. Vet. Res. 68, 1089–1094. https://doi.org/10.2460/ajvr.68.10.1089 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bragança, F. M. S., Rhodin, M. & van Weeren, P. R. On the brink of daily clinical application of objective gait analysis: What evidence do we have so far from studies using an induced lameness model?. Vet. J. 234, 11–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tvjl.2018.01.006 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Brown, M. B. & Bolger, D. T. Male-biased partial migration in a giraffe population. Front. Ecol. Evol. 7, 524. https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2019.00524 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Dagg, A. I. Giraffe: Biology, Behaviour and Conservation (Cambridge University Press, 2014).Book 

Google Scholar 
Castles, M. P. et al. Relationships between male giraffes’ colour, age and sociability. Anim. Behav. 157, 13–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2019.08.003 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar  More

Anae, J. et al. Recent advances in biochar engineering for soil contaminated with complex chemical mixtures: Remediation strategies and future perspectives. Sci. Total Environ. 767, 144351. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.144351 (2021).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Kiran, B. R. & Prasad, M. N. V. Biochar and rice husk ash assisted phytoremediation potentials of Ricinus communis L. for lead-spiked soils. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 183, 109574. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoenv.2019.109574 (2019).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Bolan, N. et al. Remediation of heavy metal(loid)s contaminated soils – To mobilize or to immobilize?. J. Hazard. Mater. 266, 141–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2013.12.018 (2014).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Burachevskaya, M. et al. The effect of granular activated carbon and biochar on the availability of Cu and Zn to Hordeum sativum distichum in contaminated soil. Plants https://doi.org/10.3390/plants10050841 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Cao, P. et al. Mercapto propyltrimethoxysilane- and ferrous sulfate-modified nano-silica for immobilization of lead and cadmium as well as arsenic in heavy metal-contaminated soil. Environ. Pollut. 266, 115152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2020.115152 (2020).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Ok, Y. S. et al. Ameliorants to immobilize Cd in rice paddy soils contaminated by abandoned metal mines in Korea. Environ. Geochem. Health 33(Suppl 1), 23–30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10653-010-9364-0 (2011).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Qin, Y. et al. Dual-wastes derived biochar with tailored surface features for highly efficient p-nitrophenol adsorption. J. Clean. Prod. 353, 131571. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.131571 (2022).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Rajput, V. D. et al. Nano-biochar: A novel solution for sustainable agriculture and environmental remediation. Environ. Res. 210, 112891. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2022.112891 (2022).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Ding, Y. et al. Biochar to improve soil fertility. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 36, 36. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-016-0372-z (2016).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Oni, B. A., Oziegbe, O. & Olawole, O. O. Significance of biochar application to the environment and economy. Ann. Agric. Sci. 64, 222–236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aoas.2019.12.006 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
He, E. et al. Two years of aging influences the distribution and lability of metal(loid)s in a contaminated soil amended with different biochars. Sci. Total Environ. 673, 245–253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.04.037 (2019).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Netherway, P. et al. Phosphorus-rich biochars can transform lead in an urban contaminated soil. J. Environ. Qual. 48, 1091–1099. https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq2018.09.0324 (2019).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
O’Connor, D. et al. Biochar application for the remediation of heavy metal polluted land: A review of in situ field trials. Sci. Total Environ. 619–620, 815–826. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.11.132 (2018).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Xu, X. et al. Effect of physicochemical properties of biochar from different feedstock on remediation of heavy metal contaminated soil in mining area. Surf. Interfaces 32, 102058. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surfin.2022.102058 (2022).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Melo, L. C. A. et al. Sorption and desorption of cadmium and zinc in two tropical soils amended with sugarcane-straw-derived biochar. J. Soils Sediments 16, 226–234. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11368-015-1199-y (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Uchimiya, M., Chang, S. & Klasson, K. T. Screening biochars for heavy metal retention in soil: Role of oxygen functional groups. J. Hazard. Mater. 190, 432–441. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2011.03.063 (2011).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Jatav, H. S. et al. Sustainable approach and safe use of biochar and its possible consequences. Sustainability https://doi.org/10.3390/su131810362 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Varalta, F. & Sorvari, J. In Organic Waste Composting through Nexus Thinking: Practices, Policies, and Trends (eds Hettiarachchi, H. et al.) 213–232 (Springer International Publishing, 2020).Chapter 

Google Scholar 
Pinotti, L. et al. Recycling food leftovers in feed as opportunity to increase the sustainability of livestock production. J. Clean. Prod. 294, 126290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126290 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Jafri, N., Wong, W. Y., Doshi, V., Yoon, L. W. & Cheah, K. H. A review on production and characterization of biochars for application in direct carbon fuel cells. Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 118, 152–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2018.06.036 (2018).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Jin, Y. et al. Characterization of biochars derived from various spent mushroom substrates and evaluation of their adsorption performance of Cu(II) ions from aqueous solution. Environ. Res. 196, 110323. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2020.110323 (2021).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Tomczyk, A., Sokołowska, Z. & Boguta, P. Biomass type effect on biochar surface characteristic and adsorption capacity relative to silver and copper. Fuel 278, 118168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2020.118168 (2020).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
FAO. Food Outlook – Biannual Report on Global Food Markets: November 2020. Rome. Phytoremediation of copper-contaminated soil by Artemisia absinthium: comparative effect of chelating agents. Environmental Geochemistry and Health. (2020). https://doi.org/10.4060/cb1993enRussian-Statistical-Year-Book. Statistical handbook. P76 M., 2020 – 700 p. ISBN 978-5-89476-497-9 (2020).Cheng, C.-H., Lehmann, J., Thies, J. E. & Burton, S. D. Stability of black carbon in soils across a climatic gradient. J. Geophys. Res. Biogeosci. 113, 55. https://doi.org/10.1029/2007JG000642 (2008).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Singh, B. P., Cowie, A. L. & Smernik, R. J. Biochar carbon stability in a clayey soil as a function of feedstock and pyrolysis temperature. Environ. Sci. Technol. 46, 11770–11778. https://doi.org/10.1021/es302545b (2012).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
He, Y. et al. Effects of biochar application on soil greenhouse gas fluxes: A meta-analysis. GCB Bioenergy 9, 743–755. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12376 (2017).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Janu, R. et al. Biochar surface functional groups as affected by biomass feedstock, biochar composition and pyrolysis temperature. Carbon Resour. Convers. 4, 36–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crcon.2021.01.003 (2021).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Tan, X. et al. Application of biochar for the removal of pollutants from aqueous solutions. Chemosphere 125, 70–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2014.12.058 (2015).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Ni, B.-J. et al. Competitive adsorption of heavy metals in aqueous solution onto biochar derived from anaerobically digested sludge. Chemosphere 219, 351–357. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2018.12.053 (2019).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Park, J.-H. et al. Competitive adsorption of heavy metals onto sesame straw biochar in aqueous solutions. Chemosphere 142, 77–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2015.05.093 (2016).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Methodological-Guidelines. Methodological guidelines for the determination of heavy metals in the soils of agricultural land and crop production – M., TSINAO, 61 (1992)Zhang, A., Li, X., Xing, J. & Xu, G. Adsorption of potentially toxic elements in water by modified biochar: A review. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 8, 104196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jece.2020.104196 (2020).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Avramiotis, E., Frontistis, Z., Manariotis, I. D., Vakros, J. & Mantzavinos, D. On the performance of a sustainable rice husk biochar for the activation of persulfate and the degradation of antibiotics. Catalysts 11, 1303 (2021).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Maiti, S., Dey, S., Purakayastha, S. & Ghosh, B. Physical and thermochemical characterization of rice husk char as a potential biomass energy source. Biores. Technol. 97, 2065–2070. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2005.10.005 (2006).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Herrera, K., Morales, L. F., Tarazona, N. A., Aguado, R. & Saldarriaga, J. F. Use of biochar from rice husk pyrolysis: Part A: Recovery as an adsorbent in the removal of emerging compounds. ACS Omega 7, 7625–7637. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsomega.1c06147 (2022).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Szewczuk-Karpisz, K., Tomczyk, A., Grygorczuk-Płaneta, K. & Naveed, S. Rhizobium leguminosarum bv. trifolii exopolysaccharide and sunflower husk biochar as factors affecting immobilization of both tetracycline and Cd2+ ions on soil solid phase. J. Soils Sediments 22, 2620–2639. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11368-022-03255-3 (2022).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Hubetska, T. S., Kobylinska, N. G. & García, J. R. Sunflower biomass power plant by-products: Properties and its potential for water purification of organic pollutants. J. Anal. Appl. Pyrolysis 157, 105237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaap.2021.105237 (2021).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Braghiroli, F. L. et al. The influence of pilot-scale pyro-gasification and activation conditions on porosity development in activated biochars. Biomass Bioenerg. 118, 105–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2018.08.016 (2018).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Braghiroli, F. L. et al. The conversion of wood residues, using pilot-scale technologies, into porous activated biochars for supercapacitors. J. Porous Mater. 27, 537–548. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10934-019-00823-w (2020).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Boraah, N., Chakma, S. & Kaushal, P. Attributes of wood biochar as an efficient adsorbent for remediating heavy metals and emerging contaminants from water: A critical review and bibliometric analysis. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 10, 107825. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jece.2022.107825 (2022).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Phillips, C. L. et al. Towards predicting biochar impacts on plant-available soil nitrogen content. Biochar 4, 9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42773-022-00137-2 (2022).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Sun, L. & Gong, K. Silicon-based materials from rice husks and their applications. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 40, 5861–5877. https://doi.org/10.1021/ie010284b (2001).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Islam, T. et al. Synthesis of rice husk-derived magnetic biochar through liquefaction to adsorb anionic and cationic dyes from aqueous solutions. Arab. J. Sci. Eng. 46, 233–246. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13369-020-04537-z (2021).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Mohan, D. et al. Biochar production and applications in soil fertility and carbon sequestration – a sustainable solution to crop-residue burning in India. RSC Adv. 8, 508–520. https://doi.org/10.1039/C7RA10353K (2018).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Li, F. et al. Preparation and characterization of biochars from Eichornia crassipes for cadmium removal in aqueous solutions. PLoS ONE 11, e0148132. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0148132 (2016).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Song, H. et al. Potential of novel biochars produced from invasive aquatic species outside food chain in removing ammonium nitrogen: Comparison with conventional biochars and clinoptilolite. Sustainability https://doi.org/10.3390/su11247136 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Yang, G. et al. Effects of pyrolysis temperature on the physicochemical properties of biochar derived from vermicompost and its potential use as an environmental amendment. RSC Adv. 5, 40117–40125. https://doi.org/10.1039/C5RA02836A (2015).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Enders, A., Hanley, K., Whitman, T., Joseph, S. & Lehmann, J. Characterization of biochars to evaluate recalcitrance and agronomic performance. Bioresour. Technol. 114, 644–653. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2012.03.022 (2012).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Zhang, Y., Wang, J. & Feng, Y. The effects of biochar addition on soil physicochemical properties: A review. CATENA 202, 105284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2021.105284 (2021).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Özçimen, D. & Ersoy-Meriçboyu, A. Characterization of biochar and bio-oil samples obtained from carbonization of various biomass materials. Renew. Energy 35, 1319–1324. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2009.11.042 (2010).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Lin, Q. et al. Effects of biochar-based materials on the bioavailability of soil organic pollutants and their biological impacts. Sci. Total Environ. 826, 153956. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.153956 (2022).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Yang, H. et al. Thermogravimetric analysis−fourier transform infrared analysis of palm oil waste pyrolysis. Energy Fuels 18, 1814–1821. https://doi.org/10.1021/ef030193m (2004).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Pasangulapati, V. et al. Effects of cellulose, hemicellulose and lignin on thermochemical conversion characteristics of the selected biomass. Biores. Technol. 114, 663–669. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2012.03.036 (2012).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Kim, P. et al. Surface functionality and carbon structures in lignocellulosic-derived biochars produced by fast pyrolysis. Energy Fuels 25, 4693–4703. https://doi.org/10.1021/ef200915s (2011).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Keiluweit, M., Nico, P. S., Johnson, M. G. & Kleber, M. dynamic molecular structure of plant biomass-derived black carbon (biochar). Environ. Sci. Technol. 44, 1247–1253. https://doi.org/10.1021/es9031419 (2010).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Wijeyawardana, P. et al. Removal of Cu, Pb and Zn from stormwater using an industrially manufactured sawdust and paddy husk derived biochar. Environ. Technol. Innov. 28, 102640. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eti.2022.102640 (2022).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Kołodyńska, D., Krukowska, J. & Thomas, P. Comparison of sorption and desorption studies of heavy metal ions from biochar and commercial active carbon. Chem. Eng. J. 307, 353–363. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2016.08.088 (2017).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Uchimiya, M. et al. Immobilization of heavy metal ions (CuII, CdII, NiII, and PbII) by broiler litter-derived biochars in water and soil. J. Agric. Food Chem. 58, 5538–5544. https://doi.org/10.1021/jf9044217 (2010).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Misono, M., Ochiai, E. I., Saito, Y. & Yoneda, Y. A new dual parameter scale for the strength of lewis acids and bases with the evaluation of their softness. J. Inorg. Nucl. Chem. 29, 2685–2691. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1902(67)80006-X (1967).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
McBride, M. B. Environmental Chemistry of Soils (Oxford University Press, 1994).
Google Scholar 
Basta, N. T. & Tabatabai, M. A. Effect of cropping systems on adsorption of metals by soils: III. Competitive adsorption1. Soil Sci. 153, 331–337 (1992).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Sposito, G. The Chemistry of Soils (Oxford University Press, 2016).Bauer, T. V. et al. Application of XAFS and XRD methods for describing the copper and zinc adsorption characteristics in hydromorphic soils. Environ. Geochem. Health 44, 335–347. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10653-020-00773-2 (2022).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Abd-Elfattah, A. L. Y. & Wada, K. Adsorption of lead, copper, zinc, cobalt, and cadmium by soils that differ in cation-exchange materials. J. Soil Sci. 32, 271–283. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2389.1981.tb01706.x (1981).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Etesami, H., Fatemi, H. & Rizwan, M. Interactions of nanoparticles and salinity stress at physiological, biochemical and molecular levels in plants: A review. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 225, 112769. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoenv.2021.112769 (2021).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Soria, R. I., Rolfe, S. A., Betancourth, M. P. & Thornton, S. F. The relationship between properties of plant-based biochars and sorption of Cd(II), Pb(II) and Zn(II) in soil model systems. Heliyon 6, e05388. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e05388 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Alfarra, A., Frackowiak, E. & Béguin, F. The HSAB concept as a means to interpret the adsorption of metal ions onto activated carbons. Appl. Surf. Sci. 228, 84–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsusc.2003.12.033 (2004).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Hu, J., Zhou, X., Shi, Y., Wang, X. & Li, H. Enhancing biochar sorption properties through self-templating strategy and ultrasonic fore-modified pre-treatment: Characteristic, kinetic and mechanism studies. Sci. Total Environ. 769, 144574. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.144574 (2021).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Ward, J., Rasul, M. G. & Bhuiya, M. M. K. Energy recovery from biomass by fast pyrolysis. Proced. Eng. 90, 669–674. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2014.11.791 (2014).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Al-Wabel, M. I., Al-Omran, A., El-Naggar, A. H., Nadeem, M. & Usman, A. R. A. Pyrolysis temperature induced changes in characteristics and chemical composition of biochar produced from conocarpus wastes. Biores. Technol. 131, 374–379. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2012.12.165 (2013).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Calvelo Pereira, R. et al. Contribution to characterisation of biochar to estimate the labile fraction of carbon. Org. Geochem. 42, 1331–1342. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orggeochem.2011.09.002 (2011).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Vorob’eva, L. A. Theory and Practice Chemical Analysis of Soils (GEOS Press, Moscow, 2006).
Google Scholar 
Pinskii, D. L. et al. Copper adsorption by chernozem soils and parent rocks in Southern Russia. Geochem. Int. 56, 266–275. https://doi.org/10.1134/S0016702918030072 (2018).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Wang, Q., Wang, B., Lee, X., Lehmann, J. & Gao, B. Sorption and desorption of Pb(II) to biochar as affected by oxidation and pH. Sci. Total Environ. 634, 188–194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.03.189 (2018).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Pourret, O. & Houben, D. Characterization of metal binding sites onto biochar using rare earth elements as a fingerprint. Heliyon 4, e00543. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2018.e00543 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Huang, L. et al. High-resolution insight into the competitive adsorption of heavy metals on natural sediment by site energy distribution. Chemosphere 197, 411–419. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2018.01.056 (2018).Article 
ADS 
MathSciNet 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Ming, H. et al. Competitive sorption of cadmium and zinc in contrasting soils. Geoderma 268, 60–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2016.01.021 (2016).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Musso, T. B., Parolo, M. E., Pettinari, G. & Francisca, F. M. Cu(II) and Zn(II) adsorption capacity of three different clay liner materials. J. Environ. Manag. 146, 50–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2014.07.026 (2014).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Cui, H. et al. Immobilization of Cu and Cd in a contaminated soil: One- and four-year field effects. J. Soils Sediments 14, 1397–1406. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11368-014-0882-8 (2014).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Elbana, T. A. et al. Freundlich sorption parameters for cadmium, copper, nickel, lead, and zinc for different soils: Influence of kinetics. Geoderma 324, 80–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2018.03.019 (2018).Article 
ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar  More

No plants were collected or harmed during this study, and all research involving plants followed relevant national, and international guidelines and legislation.Study areaThe study site encloses a wetland area bordering Ramalhete Channel, in the western part of the Ria Formosa lagoon, a mesotidal system located in southern Portugal (Fig. 1). Lunar tides are semi-diurnal, with a mean tidal range of about 2 m that can reach up to 3.5 m during spring tides. Offshore waves have no major propagation inside the lagoon33,34. Water circulation inside the lagoon is mostly driven by tides. The lagoon extends over 55 km along the coast and is connected to the ocean through six tidal inlets35. The three westmost inlets of the system (Ancão, Faro-Olhão, and Armona), which together capture ca. 90% of the total prism, are highly interconnected, with a strong residual circulation from Faro-Olhão Inlet directed towards Ancão and Armona inlets (located in Fig. 1), during both spring and neap tides36. The tidal currents in Ramalhete Channel, connecting the Faro-Olhão and Ancão Inlet, have high tidal asymmetry and shifts in tidal dominance, from flood to ebb. There are no significant fluvial inputs into the lagoon, with a yearly average terrestrial sediment influx of around 2 × 105 m3/yr37, reaching the system through small streams. The main sediment delivery to the system is through the inlets, though there are few studies assessing related fluxes. The net sediment entry through the stabilized Faro-Olhão Inlet is estimated at 1.4 × 105 m3/year38. Recent sedimentation rates in the marsh of the westmost edge of the lagoon were estimated at 1.1 ± 0.1 mm/yr39.The lagoon system is composed of large salt marsh patches, tidal flats and a complex net of natural, and partially dredged tidal channels. The tidal flats (vegetated and non-vegetated) and salt marshes represent more than 2/3 of the total lagoon area. The salt marshes comprise silt and fine sand40, while coarser (sand to shingle) shell-rich sediment, of marine provenance, is found on tidal channels and the lower domain of intertidal flats41. The dominant intertidal species are Spartina maritima and the seagrass Zostera noltei, the latter occupying an estimated area of 1304 ha, which represent 45% of the total intertidal area42.Figure 1Location of the field site in the Ria Formosa lagoon western sector over a satellite image collected in 2019 (South Portugal; upper panel); zoom to monitoring stations S1 to S4 (left lower panel); and field view of the studied site (right lower panel). Map generated with ArcGIS 10.8 (http://www.esri.com) and Adobe Illustrator 2022. Map data: Google Earth 7.3, image Landsat / Copernicus.Full size imageExperimental setup and data analysisAn experimental setup was deployed in the study area to assess dominant local topography, hydrodynamics (water levels and current velocities), Suspended Sediment Concentrations (SSCs), Deposition Rates (DRs), vegetation characteristics, and bed sediment grain size and organic matter content. Measurements were made during a full tide cycle, on a spring tide (tidal range = 3.2 m), and on a neap tide (tidal range = 1.8 m). Sampling was conducted in four wetland stations: S1 and S2 in a vegetated tidal flat comprising Zostera noltei; S3 in the low marsh comprising Spartina maritima; and S4 in the mid-upper marsh with the most abundant species of Sarcocornia perennis and Atriplex portucaloides (see S1 to S4, Fig. 1); the tidal flat is interrupted by a small oblique secondary tidal creek that flows near S2 station.Stations of sediment sampling and equipment deployment along the transect are illustrated in Fig. 2. During neap tide there was no data collection in S4, since the inundation time of the station was very short. The profile elevation was measured using Real Time Kinematic Differential Global Positioning System (RTK-DGPS, Trimble R6; vertical error in the order of few centimetres), and the slope of each habitat within a transect was calculated and expressed in percentage (%). Vegetation at each point was characterized by the canopy height, calculated as the average shoot length.Suspended Sediment Samplers (SSSs) were installed during low tide in the monitored stations using siphon samplers (Fig. 2) and recovered in the next low tide. These samplers consist of 0.5 L bottles with two holes on the cap, one for water intake and the other for air exhaust, according to the method described in13. Each intake tube is adjusted to form a siphon (i.e., inverse U), allowing to control the water level at which intake starts. Siphons were aligned at the same elevation along the transect for spring and neap tides, which means that all SSSs were collecting at the same time within the tidal cycle. During spring tide, in S1 and S2 at the tidal flat, SSSs were sampling at 0.1, 0.9, and 1.2 m from the bed, while at S3 SSSs were sampling at 0.7 and 1.0 m from the bed, and at S4 the SSS was sampling at 0.1 m from the bed (Fig. 2). During neap tide, in S1 and S2, SSSs were sampling at 0.1 and 0.9 m from the bed, while at S3 the SSS was sampling at 0.7 m from the bed.Surficial sediment samples were collected in each habitat to characterize the sediment grain size (d50) and content of organic matter (% OM). Sediment traps were installed in 3 replicates, during low tide, at each sampling point to measure the short-term sediment deposition rate (i.e., deposition over a tidal cycle, following procedures of43). Traps consisted of 3 cm diameter pre-labeled cylindrical tubes (Falcon® tubes, 50 ml). Traps and sediment samples were transported to the laboratory and maintained in a fridge. The sediment content was washed, and both the inorganic and organic weights were determined.The measured inorganic DR (g/m2/hr) was calculated as:$${text{DR}} = {raise0.7exhbox{${{text{W}}_{{{text{DS}}}} }$} !mathord{left/ {vphantom {{{text{W}}_{{{text{DS}}}} } {{text{A}} cdot {text{T}}}}}right.kern-0pt} !lower0.7exhbox{${{text{A}} cdot {text{T}}}$}}$$
(1)
where WDS is the weight of deposited sediment (in grams), A is the area of the sediment trap opening (m2), and T is in hours. Two different tide durations were considered to compute DRs, one assuming T equal to the hydroperiod in each station, and one assuming T equal to the entire tide duration (~ 12.4 h). These measured DRs are hereon mentioned as flood and tide DRs (DRflood and DRtide, respectively). The former is an expression of the actual deposition rate within the flood phase, during the period in which each station is inundated (and therefore active deposition can take place). The latter is the value used to compare with DRs in literature, which typically corresponds to values averaged over multiple tidal cycles (thus accounting for the entire tide duration).Tide levels were measured in the field using pressure sensors (PT, InSitu Inc. Level TROLL; ~ 2 cm from the bed), deployed from S2 towards S4 (Fig. 2). Velocity currents were measured at 20 cm from the bed, using an electromagnetic current meter (EMCM; Infinity Series JFE Advantech Co., Ltd; in S2 to S4; Fig. 2), and raw data (recording interval: 30 s) were filtered using a 10 min moving average for cross-shore and longshore components. To identify tidal asymmetry and assess the related phase dominance, tidal current skewness was calculated through the formula described in44 by which:
$$Sk_{U} = frac{{frac{1}{N – 1}mathop sum nolimits_{t = 1}^{N} left( {U_{t} – overline{U}} right)^{3} }}{{left( {frac{1}{N – 1}mathop sum nolimits_{t = 1}^{N} left( {U_{t} – overline{U}} right)^{2} } right)^{{{raise0.7exhbox{$3$} !mathord{left/ {vphantom {3 2}}right.kern-0pt} !lower0.7exhbox{$2$}}}} }}$$
(2)
where N is the number of recordings, Ut is the input velocity signal and (overline{U}) is the mean velocity. Positive/negative skewness indicates flood/ebb dominance (assuming that flood currents are positive).Figure 2Deployment of the sediment traps, SSSs and devices (electromagnetic current meter EMCM; pressure transducer PT) in the stations (S1 to S4) during spring tide (sketch is exaggerated in the vertical).Full size imageComplementary to the measured DRs, theoretical DRs were also determined from the data, allowing us to link the sediment and flow data collected, and validate the deposition patterns from the traps. The theoretical deposition rate was determined based on45 formula:$${text{DR}} = left{ {begin{array}{*{20}c} {{text{C}}_{{text{b}}} cdot {text{w}}_{{text{s}}} cdot left( {1 – frac{{{uptau }_{{text{b}}} }}{{{uptau }_{{{text{cd}}}} }}} right)} & {{uptau }_{{text{b}}} < {uptau }_{{{text{cd}}}} } \ 0 & {{uptau }_{{text{b}}} ge {uptau }_{{{text{cd}}}} } \ end{array} } right.$$ (3) where Cb is the SSC at the bed, ws is the flock settling velocity, τb is the bed shear stress and τcd is the corresponding critical value for deposition.To determine the settling rate of the flocculates, the modified Stokes’ velocity for cohesive sediment was used, taking shape factors α and β (α = β = 1 for perfectly spherical particles):$${text{w}}_{{text{s}}} = frac{{upalpha }}{{upbeta }} cdot frac{{left( {{uprho }_{{text{s}}} - {uprho }_{{text{w}}} } right) cdot {text{g}} cdot {text{D}}_{50}^{2} }}{{{uprho }_{{text{w}}} cdot 18 cdot {upnu }}}$$ (4) where ρw and ρs are the densities of the water and sediment, respectively and ν is the kinematic viscosity of water (~ 106 m2/s).The bed shear stress τb was calculated from the measured current magnitude, |U| using the law of the wall:$$begin{array}{*{20}c} \ {{uptau }_{{text{b}}} = {uprho }_{{text{w}}} cdot {text{u}}_{*}^{2} , {text{u}}_{*} = frac{left| U right| cdot kappa }{{ln left( {{raise0.7exhbox{$z$} !mathord{left/ {vphantom {z {z_{0} }}}right.kern-0pt} !lower0.7exhbox{${z_{0} }$}}} right)}} } \ end{array} { }$$ (5) where κ is the von Kármán constant (~ 0.4) and z0 is the roughness length. For Zostera noltei, the roughness length was estimated at 5 mm46, value that was also used in the other stations, in lack of related estimate for marsh plants.The critical shear for deposition, τcd, was calculated using the formula47:$$sqrt {frac{{{uptau }_{{{text{cd}}}} }}{{{uprho }_{{text{w}}} }}} = left{ {begin{array}{*{20}c} {0.008} & {{text{w}}_{{text{s}}} le 5 cdot 10^{ - 5} {text{m}}/{text{s}}} \ {0.094 + 0.02 cdot {text{log}}_{10} left( {{text{w}}_{{text{s}}} } right)} & {3 cdot 10^{ - 4} le {text{w}}_{{text{s}}} le 5 cdot 10^{ - 5} {text{m}}/{text{s}}} \ {0.023} & {{text{w}}_{{text{s}}} ge 3 cdot 10^{ - 4} {text{m}}/{text{s}}} \ end{array} } right.$$ (6) Theoretical values of minimum SSCs needed for these DRs were also calculated, assuming that there is constant deposition (i.e., setting τb = 0), and compared with the field results. More

Himalayan marmot habitat analysisThe environmental factors including temperature, vegetation and elevation are the key drivers for the wildlife in alpine ecosystems32. Specific landform attributes such as slope and elevation and vegetation cover affect the population and burrowing of rodents33. For example, rodent burrows in the Western Usambara Mountains in Tanzania were only found at an elevation of above 1600 m33. However, the Himalayan marmot seems to prefer to inhabit areas with low elevation and high land surface temperature34. In this study, the data showed that 76.25% of the Himalayan marmots were found in areas with elevation values of 3400–4600 m. The majority of marmots were found in areas with slopes of 5–20° and vegetation cover higher than 60%. Most marmots were found in alpine meadows, a few were found in temperate grasslands and alpine grasslands, and none were found in other grassland types.Preliminary statistical analysis of vegetation cover, grass type, vegetation type, and Himalayan marmot distribution sample sites obtained using spatial geographic information technology revealed that the meadow grassland areas with lush grass growth, more dominant plants, and abundant food had more marmots. When the vegetation cover reached 0.60–1.00, the number of marmot distribution sample sites was the highest. Dense grass is an ideal habitat and provides concealment for Himalayan marmots, and the abundant plant types provide sufficient food for marmots. In contrast, no marmots were distributed in the alpine scrub, coniferous forest, and alpine snow/ice covered areas where vegetation growth was poor, vegetation cover was low, and food was relatively scarce. Moreover, 70.24% of Himalayan marmots were found in alpine meadows with a wide variety of plant species, including Poaceae, Cyperaceae, and grasses. This finding indicated that alpine meadows are more suitable for Himalayan marmots and have more advantageous habitat conditions compared with other grassland types. The elevation of alpine meadows is 3236–5126 m, and the vegetation is mainly meadows with simple vegetation structure, substantial vegetation cover and dense vegetation growth, and a wide variety of plants, rich food, soft grass, and good palatability. Therefore, alpine meadows provide good natural habitats and foraging sites for marmots.Habitat selection of large rodents is influenced by a combination of vegetation cover availability, food availability, and population density35. Vegetation cover is an important parameter that describes vegetation communities and ecosystems and is closely related to vegetation quantity and productivity. The quality of habitat vegetation is an important factor that affects the spatial distribution of plateau rodents. Both feeding and concealment depend on vegetation, and the height and cover of edible plants and vegetation suitable for concealment determine the choice of vegetation type by marmots. Thus, vegetation cover becomes an important factor for habitat selection by marmots. Different grassland types determine different plant conditions, and selection of different vegetation conditions can increase the chances of survival and improve the reproductive success of marmots; therefore, grassland type is an important ecological factor in habitat selection by marmots. A study showed that the ecological factors affecting habitat selection of Himalayan marmots are mainly topography, anthropogenic disturbance, and vegetation8. Another study concluded that habitat selection by Himalayan marmots is closely related to elements such as topography, landform, temperature, precipitation, and vegetation24.The functions of burrows’ physical parameters is to protect the Himalayan marmots from natural enemies and bad weather36. There is clearly influence of slope on habitat selection by marmots. When the slope is large, wind is strong, and burrows are not well hidden; this makes them difficult to defend against enemies, unsafe for survival, and not conducive to hibernation during winter. In addition, Himalayan marmots prefer to burrow on sunny aspect, because the temperature is suitable and the vegetation is lush, which is suitable for marmots to breed. Therefore, the number of marmot burrows gradually decreases with increasing slope and ubac. Although flat and low-lying areas with small slopes are good for marmots to create dens, rainwater will easily flow into the dens during summer rainfall, which will kill marmots. Therefore, a suitable slope and sunny aspect are also very important for habitat selection by marmots.Application of the predictive spatial distribution map of Himalayan marmots in Qinghai provincePlague surveillance is the main measure used for plague prevention and control in China. Although we have made many improvements in plague surveillance, the traditional method of dragnet surveillance still consumes a lot of human and material resources, is inefficient. The pasture area of Qinghai province is approximately 380,000 km2, and the identified natural plague focus is approximately 180,000 km2; therefore, there is still 200,000 km2 of pasture where the distribution of Himalayan marmots and plague have not been identified. Currently, RS technology is widely used in the fields of mapping and ecological surveillance18,19,21,22,37.Applications of RS technology in areas such as malaria, dengue, schistosomiasis and plague have been previously reported27,37. Using GIS combined with remotely sensed data, Proches Hieronimo et al. found that the presence of small mammals was positively influenced by elevation, whereas the presence of fleas was clearly influenced by land management features, and thus these observations have positive implications for plague surveillance27. In this study, RS technology combined with field validations were used to determine the distribution and areas of different types of grasslands in Qinghai province, and the average density of Himalayan marmot distribution in different types of grasslands. The high-, low-, and very low-density areas of Himalayan marmot distribution were identified. The soil map, vegetation map, administrative map, and marmot density statistics were merged to form the spatial data and attribute data basis for the information system to map the distribution of Himalayan marmot and determine the area of Himalayan marmot distribution. Generally speaking, the occurrence of human plague epidemic is closely related to the local animal plague epidemic2. However, a large part of the high-density distribution of Himalayan marmots is located in uninhabited areas and the areas are generally sparsely populated, which also indicates that we should reasonably allocate plague prevention and control resources to areas where human plague is most likely to occur to prevent the occurrence of human plague epidemics.Field validation for verificationThrough field validation and information from local farmers and herdsmen, we confirmed that Himalayan marmots inhabited 68 sample sites in Tongde, Zeku, Guinan, Xunhua, Haiyan, Ulan, Qilian, Hualong, and Huzhu counties. Among them, Tongde, Zeku, Guinan, Xunhua, Haiyan, Ulan, and Qilian counties have all historically experienced marmot plague outbreaks and can be considered as reliable natural plague foci38. The data from this field validation are consistent with the previous survey data and the epidemic history of the counties in Qinghai province39.MAE can better reflect the actual number of errors in prediction values; the smaller the MAE value, the higher the prediction accuracy. The MAE derived from the field validation data was 0.1331 and the prediction accuracy was 0.8669. The accuracy of the predicted Himalayan marmot spatial distribution reached 87%, which indicated that the predicted probability map of the Himalayan marmot spatial distribution can better predict the potential marmot distribution.The predicted spatial distribution map of Himalayan marmot in Qinghai province was then compared with environmental information such as elevation, vegetation, grass type, slope, and aspect of 352 field survey sites. The obtained RS data showed that the prediction results were excellent, and the predicted spatial distribution map of Himalayan marmot in Qinghai province was drawn with high accuracy. The prediction map visually reflects the different density distribution of Himalayan marmots; this allows us to optimize the settings and reasonable spatial layout of animal plague surveillance sites and improve surveillance efficiency.Application of marmot information collection system V3.0Marmot information collection system V3.0 was developed based on the “3S” technology standardizing the collection of surveillance data, and makes the management and analysis of information more convenient and faster. This study revolutionized the traditional method of considering plague-stricken counties as the plague foci, and effectively reduces the work intensity of operators and improves the data collection efficiency. In 2016 and 2017, we applied this system to the animal plague surveillance tasks in the plague-stricken counties of Haidong, Hainan, and Haibei in Qinghai province, and standardized the collection of provincial geographic location data of animal plague surveillance (data not shown). In 2018, we also applied this system in Wulan County, which frequently experiences plague, and achieved a good application effect (data not shown).In the next step, we will expand the pilot areas (mainly national and provincial plague surveillance sites), collect surveillance data from each surveillance site, continuously optimize and update the system, improve the efficiency of data analysis and utilization, detect the plague epidemic in marmot in a timely and accurate manner, correctly determine the epidemic trend of plague in marmots, and attempt to strictly prevent the plague from spreading to humans. We plan to use a new model of drone surveillance to create a multidimensional, three-dimensional, real-time big data plague surveillance information reporting system to enhance early plague warnings and prediction in Qinghai province and even in the country, which will be of positive practical significance to serve and guarantee the Belt and Road Initiative. These approaches are expected to provide new technical means for plague investigation and research, and to provide references for setting up plague surveillance programs and prediction for the natural Himalayan marmot plague focus in Qinghai province and the QTP. More

Gillooly, J. F., Brown, J. H., West, G. B., Savage, V. M. & Charnov, E. L. Effects of size and temperature on metabolic rate. Science 293, 2248–2251 (2001).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Davidson, E. A. & Janssens, I. A. Temperature sensitivity of soil carbon decomposition and feedbacks to climate change. Nature 440, 165–173 (2006).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Lopez-Urrutia, A., San Martin, E., Harris, R. P. & Irigoien, X. Scaling the metabolic balance of the oceans. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 103, 8739–8744 (2006).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Yvon-Durocher, G. et al. Reconciling the temperature dependence of respiration across timescales and ecosystem types. Nature 487, 472–476 (2012).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Crowther, T. W. et al. Quantifying global soil carbon losses in response to warming. Nature 540, 104–108 (2016).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Bar-On, Y. M., Phillips, R. & Milo, R. The biomass distribution on Earth. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115, 6506–6511 (2018).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Rivkin, R. B. & Legendre, L. Biogenic carbon cycling in the upper ocean: effects of microbial respiration. Science 291, 2398–2400 (2001).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Friedlingstein, P. et al. Uncertainties in CMIP5 climate projections due to carbon cycle feedbacks. J. Clim. 27, 511–526 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Smith, T. P. et al. Community-level respiration of prokaryotic microbes may rise with global warming. Nat. Commun. 10, 5124 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Antwis, R. E. et al. Fifty important research questions in microbial ecology. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 93, fix044 (2017).Bardgett, R. D., Freeman, C. & Ostle, N. J. Microbial contributions to climate change through carbon cycle feedbacks. ISME J. 2, 805–814 (2008).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Enquist, B. J. et al. Scaling from traits to ecosystems: developing a general trait driver theory via integrating trait-based and metabolic scaling theories. Adv. Ecol. Res. 52, 249–318 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Allen, A. P., Gillooly, J. F. & Brown, J. H. Linking the global carbon cycle to individual metabolism. Funct. Ecol. 19, 202–213 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
Schramski, J. R., Dell, A. I., Grady, J. M., Sibly, R. M. & Brown, J. H. Metabolic theory predicts whole-ecosystem properties. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, 2617–2622 (2015).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Alster, C. J., Koyama, A., Johnson, N. G., Wallenstein, M. D. & von Fischer, J. C. Temperature sensitivity of soil microbial communities: an application of macromolecular rate theory to microbial respiration. J. Geophys. Res. Biogeosci. 121, 1420–1433 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Yvon-Durocher, G. et al. Five years of experimental warming increases the biodiversity and productivity of phytoplankton. PLoS Biol. 13, e1002324 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
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).Foster, K. R. & Bell, T. Competition, not cooperation, dominates interactions among culturable microbial species. Curr. Biol. 22, 1845–1850 (2012).Article 
CAS 

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

Google Scholar 
Machado, D. et al. Polarization of microbial communities between competitive and cooperative metabolism. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 5, 195–203 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bradford, M. A. et al. Cross-biome patterns in soil microbial respiration predictable from evolutionary theory on thermal adaptation. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 3, 223–231 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Garcia-Martin, E. E., McNeill, S., Serret, P. & Leakey, R. J. G. Plankton metabolism and bacterial growth efficiency in offshore waters along a latitudinal transect between the UK and Svalbard. Deep Sea Res. I 92, 141–151 (2014).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Davidson, E. A., Richardson, A. D., Savage, K. E. & Hollinger, D. Y. A distinct seasonal pattern of the ratio of soil respiration to total ecosystem respiration in a spruce-dominated forest. Glob. Change Biol. 12, 230–239 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
Dutkiewicz, S., Follows, M. J. & Bragg, J. G. Modeling the coupling of ocean ecology and biogeochemistry. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 23, GB4017 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Follows, M. J., Dutkiewicz, S., Ward, B. & Follett, C. in Microbial Ecology of the Oceans 3rd edn (eds Gasol, J. & Kirchman, D.) Ch. 12 (John Wiley, 2018).Letten, A. D. & Stouffer, D. B. The mechanistic basis for higher-order interactions and non-additivity in competitive communities. Ecol. Lett. 22, 423–436 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Grilli, J., Barabás, G., Michalska-Smith, M. J. & Allesina, S. Higher-order interactions stabilize dynamics in competitive network models. Nature 548, 210–213 (2017).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Maynard, D. S., Crowther, T. W. & Bradford, M. A. Competitive network determines the direction of the diversity–function relationship. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, 11464–11469 (2017).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Fiegna, F., Moreno-Letelier, A., Bell, T. & Barraclough, T. G. Evolution of species interactions determines microbial community productivity in new environments. ISME J. 9, 1235–1245 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lawrence, D. et al. Species interactions alter evolutionary responses to a novel environment. PLoS Biol. 10, e1001330 (2012).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Harcombe, W. R., Chacón, J. M., Adamowicz, E. M., Chubiz, L. M. & Marx, C. J. Evolution of bidirectional costly mutualism from byproduct consumption. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115, 12000–12004 (2018).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Goldford, J. E. et al. Emergent simplicity in microbial community assembly. Science 361, 469–474 (2018).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Yvon-Durocher, G. et al. Methane fluxes show consistent temperature dependence across microbial to ecosystem scales. Nature 507, 488–491 (2014).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Fox, J. W. & Harpole, W. S. Revealing how species loss affects ecosystem function: the trait-based price equation partition. Ecology 89, 269–279 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kontopoulos, D., Smith, T. P., Barraclough, T. G. & Pawar, S. Adaptive evolution shapes the present-day distribution of the thermal sensitivity of population growth rate. PLoS Biol. 18, e3000894 (2020).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Wilson, W. G. & Lundberg, P. Biodiversity and the Lotka–Volterra theory of species interactions: open systems and the distribution of logarithmic densities. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 271, 1977–1984 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
Rossberg, A. G. in Food Webs and Biodiversity 181–191 (John Wiley & Sons, 2013).Schloss, P. D. et al. Introducing mothur: open-source, platform-independent, community-supported software for describing and comparing microbial communities. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 75, 7537–7541 (2009).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Garcia, F. C., Bestion, E., Warfield, R. & Yvon-Durocher, G. Changes in temperature alter the relationship between biodiversity and ecosystem functioning. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115, 10989–10999 (2018).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Padfield, D., O’Sullivan, H. & Pawar, S. rTPC and nls.multstart: a new pipeline to fit thermal performance curves in R. Methods Ecol. Evol. 12, 1138–1143 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar  More

Study areaThe Qinghai–Tibet Plateau (26°00′-39°47′N, 73°19′-104°47′E), one of the most important pastoral areas in the world, straddles the southwest regions of China, and it includes 244 counties, which belong to six provinces: Tibet, Qinghai, Xinjiang, Gansu, Sichuan, and Yunnan. It is characterized by rich natural grassland resources, including desert steppes, alpine steppes, and alpine meadows (Fig. 1a). The grassland areas account for over 56% of this region34. The grassland plays a vital role in providing regional and national animal husbandry products and fodder35, which enables the local herders to obtain almost all of the resources required for survival36. The grazing density distribution is extremely unbalanced (Fig. 1a) owing to the high spatial heterogeneity of economic development (Fig. 1b-1) and grassland production (Fig. 1b-2), resulting from the differences in resources and environmental factors37. Over the past few decades, there has been a significant change in the number of livestock animals, and the number of sheep exceeded 160 million by 2020. Therefore, it is urgent to obtain a high-resolution gridded grazing dataset for its evaluating spatiotemporal changes and coordinating the relationship between human beings and the grassland ecosystem.Fig. 1Location of the Qinghai–Tibet Plateau: (a) grassland type and distribution, and grazing density (GD) in 244 counties; (b) spatial heterogeneity of economic development (ED) and grassland production (GP) in 244 counties. GD, ED, and GP are represented by sheep unit per grassland area per county (SU/hm2), human footprint index per pixel (HF/pixel) per county, and net primary production per grassland area per county (gC/m2), respectively.Full size imageFig. 2Methodological framework for grazing spatialization.Full size imageMethodological frameworkWe developed a methodological framework for high-resolution gridded grazing dataset mapping. The framework mainly includes four parts: (i) identifying features affecting grazing, (ii) extracting theoretical suitable grazing areas, (iii) building grazing spatialization model, and (iv) correcting the grazing spatialization dataset. Each step is explained in more detail below (Fig. 2).Step 1: Identifying features affecting grazingGrazing activities are affected by the spatial heterogeneity of resources and environmental factors, regulated by the grazing behavior of herders and the foraging behavior of herds, and restricted by ecological protection policies. Therefore, the specific implications of the 14 influencing factors from the above four aspects are presented in Table 1. These factors are necessary for spatializing the county-level grazing data.Table 1 The identified features affecting grazing.Full size tableStep 2: Extracting theoretical suitable grazing areasThe decision tree approach38 was adopted to extract the theoretical suitable grazing areas for further grazing spatialization (step 2 in Fig. 2). First, the potential grazing area was identified according to the boundary of the grassland ecosystem, because grazing behavior only occurs in the grassland. Then, the unsuitable areas for grazing, i.e., extremely-high-altitude areas and areas adjacent to towns, were removed from the potential grazing area stepwise. The areas strictly prohibited for grazing, i.e., the core areas of national nature reserves39 within grassland areas, were also deemed unsuitable for grazing. Finally, the extracted areas were the theoretically suitable grazing areas.Step 3: Building grazing spatialization model(i) Extracting cross-scale feature (CSFs)In the traditional method, the spatial resolution of the training data (i.e., the average value at the administrative level) differs from that of the predicting data (i.e., the value at the pixel level), and the trained model can only capture the characteristics within the training data. However, the extreme value of the predicting data inevitably exceeds the range of the training data, which can result in underestimation in these parts40. To reduce these mismatches, we built an improved method for CSFs extraction (Fig. 2, first part of step 3).First, the census grazing data are simply distributed from county level to pixel level using the weight of the absolute disturbance (AD) index as Eq. (1). The AD index is measured by Mahalanobis distance using Eq. (2), which is calculated according to the deviation between the potential and observed normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI) values22. Second, the distributed grazing data are graded via the hierarchical clustering method, and the optimal number of the group can be determined using the Davies–Bouldin index (DBI)41 as Eq. (3), an index for evaluating the quality of clustering algorithm. The smaller the DBI, the smaller the distance within each group. Therefore, the DBI can be used to select the best similar values to minimize the deviation within each group. Finally, we can obtain the scope of the groups within each county using the above two steps and obtain the average value of all independent variables and the dependent variable accordingly. As expected, we can decompose the average value at the county level (traditional features in Fig. 2) into the average value at the group level (improved features in Fig. 2).$$S{U}_{i}=S{U}_{j}^{C}frac{{w}_{A{D}_{i}}}{{w}_{A{D}_{j}}}$$
(1)
where SUi and (S{U}_{j}^{C}) are the grazing value for pixel i and the census grazing value for county j; ({w}_{A{D}_{i}}) is the weight of the AD index for pixel i and ({w}_{A{D}_{j}}) represents the summed weight of the AD index values for all pixels in county j.$$begin{array}{cll}A{D}_{i} & = & sqrt{{({D}_{i}-u)}^{T}co{v}^{-1}({D}_{i}-u)}\ {D}_{i} & = & NDV{I}_{i}^{T}-NDV{I}_{i}^{P}end{array}$$
(2)
where ADi is the AD index for pixel i; the vector composed of its observed NDVI (left(NDV{I}_{i}^{T}right)) and potential NDVI (left(NDV{I}_{i}^{P}right)) time-series data could be considered as two points in the feature space for pixel i, and Di and u are the difference and the mean value of the vector, respectively; cov is the covariance matrix.$$DB{I}_{k}=frac{1}{k}{sum }_{x=1}^{k}ma{x}_{yne x}left(frac{overline{{a}_{x}}+overline{{a}_{y}}}{left|{delta }_{x}-{delta }_{y}right|}right)$$
(3)
where DBIk is the DBI coefficient when the cluster number is k; (overline{{a}_{x}}) and (overline{{a}_{y}}) are the average distances of the group xth and the group yth, respectively; δx and δy are the center distance of the group xth and the group yth, respectively.Different from the traditional method, our method can decompose features into multiple features using the grading AD index. The differences among counties will not be easily averaged out. Moreover, our method is less affected by scale mismatch and can be transferred to cross-scale modeling26.(ii) Building RF model with partitioningA single model cannot accurately obtain the variation information of the Qinghai–Tibet Plateau with high spatial heterogeneity. The partition model, a widely used method for estimating population distribution and others42,43, can be incorporated into the proposed model to improve its performance. The thresholds (0.43, 0.35 and 0.21 SU/hm2), determined according to the theoretical livestock carrying capacity (equation S1), were calculated and used to separate independent variables and dependent variable for each grassland types: alpine meadow, alpine steppe and alpine desert steppe (see Section 6.1 for details). Then, the RF models were established, and the training and testing samples were randomly divided in the proportion of 3:1. It is notable that transforming the response variable using natural log prior to RF model fitting is necessary to achieve higher prediction accuracies44. Finally, the independent variables at the pixel level were inputted into the two trained RF models, and the corresponding grid grazing dataset was output by combining the two results (Fig. 2, second part of step 3).(iii) Validating the accuracy of the methodsThe performance of the grazing spatialization model was evaluated through a comparison of the predicted value with census value26. Accuracy validation indexes, including coefficients of determination (R2), root mean square error (RMSE), and mean absolute error (MAE), were used to evaluate the performances of the proposed RF-based models (Table 2), as presented in Eq. (4).$$begin{array}{ccc}{R}^{2} & = & 1-frac{{sum }_{j=1}^{N}{left(S{U}_{j}^{C}-S{U}_{j}^{P}right)}^{2}}{{sum }_{j=1}^{N}{left(S{U}_{j}^{C}-overline{S{U}^{C}}right)}^{2}}\ RMSE & = & sqrt{frac{{sum }_{j=1}^{N}{left(S{U}_{j}^{C}-S{U}_{j}^{P}right)}^{2}}{N}}\ MAE & = & frac{{sum }_{j=1}^{N}| S{U}_{j}^{C}-S{U}_{j}^{P}| }{N}end{array}$$
(4)
where (S{U}_{j}^{C}) and (S{U}_{j}^{P}) are the census grazing value and the predicted grazing value for county j, respectively; (overline{S{U}^{C}}) is the average census data for all counties; and N is the number of all counties.Table 2 The proposed methods and their descriptions.Full size tableStep 4: Correcting grazing spatialization dataset(i) Correcting residuals of datasetCorrecting residuals is necessary to obtain datasets with higher accuracy45,46, because propagating the cross-scale relationship in the RF models will inevitably generate errors47. The residuals, calculated by the difference between the average census grazing and predicted grazing values at the administrative level, were used to calibrate the errors related to all pixels within this county. The revised dataset after residual correction is the final product provided in this study. The residual correction method is expressed by Eq. (5), and the process is shown in the fourth step in Fig. 2.$$S{U}_{i}^{RP}=S{U}_{i}^{P}+{R}_{j}$$
(5)
where (S{U}_{i}^{RP}) denotes the predicted grazing value revised by the residuals for pixel i, (S{U}_{i}^{P}) denotes the predicted grazing for pixel i, and Rj denotes the residuals calculated from the difference between census grazing and predicted grazing data for county j.(ii) Validating the accuracy of datasetTwo goodness-of-fit indexes were used to validate the consistency of spatial distribution and the temporal trend between predicted grazing data and census grazing data. Generally, the coefficient of determination (R2), defined in Eq. (4), is used to verify the consistency of spatial distribution, and the Nash–Sutcliffe efficiency (NSE, Eq. (6)) is used to verify the consistency of temporal trend. An index value closer to 1 corresponds to a more accurate dataset. Meanwhile, we also collected field grazing data from 56 sites to further validate the spatial accuracy of the dataset, and it measured using the R2 in Eq. (4).$$NSE=1-frac{{sum }_{t=1}^{T}{left(S{U}_{t}^{RP}-S{U}_{t}^{C}right)}^{2}}{{sum }_{t=1}^{T}{left(S{U}_{t}^{C}-overline{S{U}^{{C}^{{prime} }}}right)}^{2}}$$
(6)
where (S{U}_{t}^{RP}) and (S{U}_{t}^{C}) are the predicted grazing value revised by residuals and the census grazing value of all counties in year t, respectively; (overline{S{U}^{{C}^{{prime} }}}) is the average census grazing value of all years; and T is the number of time steps.(iii) Identifying uncertainties associated with datasetThe uncertainties associated with the dataset originate from the following two aspects: First, the unreasonableness of our method, owing to the errors related to cross-scale modeling or the inappropriate selection of influencing factors, is an important source of uncertainties. Second, the incompleteness of auxiliary variables also introduces uncertainties. In this instance, grassland-free areas are not accurately identified in some counties, but livestock animals are raised in these counties. These counties have no effective value for livestock density prediction. Overall, the uncertainties can be identified in terms of the mean relative error (MRE) in Eq. (7).$$MRE=frac{{sum }_{j=1}^{N}left|frac{S{U}_{j}^{C}-S{U}_{j}^{RP}}{S{U}_{j}^{C}}right|}{N}ast 100 % $$
(7)
where (S{U}_{j}^{C}) is the census grazing value for county j, (S{U}_{j}^{RP}) is the predicted grazing value revised by residuals for county j, and N is the number of counties.Data sourceCensus grazing data at county levelEight types of livestock, namely cattle, yaks, horses, donkeys, mules, camels, goats, and sheep, were considered according to the regional characteristics, and livestock stocking quantity at the end of year for each county can be determined from statistical yearbooks. However, the numbers of livestock at the county level for some years between 1982 and 2015 were not recorded. The missing data were indirectly approximated from city- or provincial-level data (e.g., interpolation using their temporal trends). Each type of livestock stocking quantity was converted into standard sheep unit (SU) according to the national standards using Eq. (8)48, namely the calculation of rangeland carrying capacity (NY/T 635-2015). Of the 244 counties of the Qinghai–Tibet Plateau, only 242 counties were considered, as the census grazing data for the other 2 counties were unavailable. The unit of grazing statistics data at the county level is defined as SU per county per year (SU·county−1·year−1).$$begin{array}{l}SU={N}_{sheep}+0.8times {N}_{goats}+5times {N}_{cattle}+5times {N}_{yaks+}+\ 6times {N}_{horses}+3times {N}_{donkeys}+6times {N}_{mules}+7times {N}_{camels}end{array}$$
(8)
where Nsheep, Ngoats, Ncattle, Nyaks, Nhorses, Ndonkeys, Nmules, Ncamels are the number of sheep, goats, cattle, yaks, horses, donkeys, mules, and camels at the year-end, respectively. SU denotes the standard sheep unit (SU·county−1·year−1).Data of grazing influencing factors at pixel levelThe types of features affecting grazing were obtained from the first step described in Methods, and the detailed information, such as original spatiotemporal resolution, format, and source, is shown in Table 3. The format (i.e., GeoTIFF), spatial resolution (i.e., 0.083°), and the number of rows and columns of the gridded features were leveraged to further produce a high-resolution grazing dataset.Table 3 Data source of grazing influence factors.Full size table More

Now consider a generalized model in which the species interactions are heterogeneous. A natural way of introducing heterogeneity in the system is by having a species diversify into subpopulations with different interaction strengths12,13,14,15. This way of modeling heterogeneity is useful as it can describe different kinds of heterogeneity. For example, the subpopulations could represent polymorphic traits that are genetically determined or result from plastic response to heterogeneous environments. A population could also be divided into local subpopulations in different spatial patches, which can migrate between patches and may face different local predators. We can also model different behavioral modes as subpopulations that, for instance, spend more time foraging for food or hiding from predators. We study several kinds of heterogeneity after we introduce a common mathematical framework. By studying these different scenarios using variants of the model, we show that our main results are not sensitive to the details of the model.We focus on the simple case where only the prey species splits into two types, (C_1) and (C_2), as illustrated in Fig. 1b. The situation is interesting when predator A consumes (C_1) more readily than predator B and B consumes (C_2) more readily than A (i.e., (a_1 / a_0 > b_1 / b_0) and (b_2 / b_0 > a_2 / a_0), which is equivalent to the condition that the nullclines of A and B cross, see section “Resources competition and nullcline analysis”). The arrows between (C_1) and (C_2) in Fig. 1b represent the exchange of individuals between the two subpopulations, which can happen by various mechanisms considered below. Such exchange as well as intraspecific competition between (C_1) and (C_2) result from the fact that the two prey types remain a single species.The system is now described by an enlarged Lotka-Volterra system with four variables, A, B, (C_1), and (C_2): $$begin{aligned} dot{A}&= varepsilon _A ,alpha _{A1} , A , C_1 + alpha _{A2} , A , C_2 – beta _A , A end{aligned}$$
(3a)
$$begin{aligned} dot{B}&= varepsilon _B , alpha _{B1} , B , C_1 + alpha _{B2} , B , C_2 – beta _B , B end{aligned}$$
(3b)
$$begin{aligned} dot{C_1}&= C_1 , (beta _C – alpha _{CC} , C)-alpha _{A1} , C_1 A-alpha _{B1} , C_1 B – sigma _1 , C_1 + sigma _2 , C_2 end{aligned}$$
(3c)
$$begin{aligned} dot{C_2}&= C_2 , (beta _C – alpha _{CC} , C) -alpha _{A2} , C_2 A -alpha _{B2} , C_2 B + sigma _1 , C_1 – sigma _2 , C_2 end{aligned}$$
(3d)
The parameters in these equations and their meanings are listed in Table 1. Here we assume that the prey types (C_1) and (C_2) have the same birth rate and intraspecific competition strength, but different interaction strengths with A and B. Note that (C_1) and (C_2) are connected by the (sigma _i) terms, which represent the exchange of individuals between these subpopulations through mechanisms studied below; these terms indicate a major difference between our model of a prey with intraspecific heterogeneity and other models of two prey species. For the convenience of analysis, we transform the variables (C_1) and (C_2) to another pair of variables C and (lambda), where (C equiv C_1 + C_2) is the total population of C as before, and (lambda equiv C_2 / (C_1 + C_2)) represents the composition of the population (Fig. 1c). After this transformation and rescaling of variables (described in “Methods”), the new dynamical system can be written as: $$begin{aligned} dot{A}&= A , big ( C , (a_1 (1-lambda ) + a_2 lambda ) – a_0 big ) end{aligned}$$
(4a)
$$begin{aligned} dot{B}&= B , big ( C , (b_1 (1-lambda ) + b_2 lambda ) – b_0 big ) end{aligned}$$
(4b)
$$begin{aligned} dot{C}&= C , big ( 1 – C – A (a_1 (1-lambda ) + a_2 lambda ) – B (b_1 (1-lambda ) + b_2 lambda ) big ) end{aligned}$$
(4c)
$$begin{aligned} dot{lambda }&= lambda (1-lambda ) , big ( A (a_1 – a_2) + B (b_1 – b_2) big ) + eta _1 (1-lambda ) – eta _2 lambda end{aligned}$$
(4d)
Here, (a_i) and (b_i) are the (rescaled) feeding rates of the predators on the prey type (C_i); (a_0) and (b_0) are the death rates of the predators as before; (eta _1) and (eta _2) are the exchange rates of the prey types (Table 1). The latter can be functions of other variables, representing different kinds of heterogeneous interactions that we study below. Notice that Eqs. (4a–4c) are equivalent to the homogeneous Eqs. (2a–2c) but with effective interaction strengths (a_text {eff} = (1-lambda ) , a_1 + lambda , a_2) and (b_text {eff} = (1-lambda ) , b_1 + lambda , b_2) that both depend on the prey composition (lambda) (Fig. 1c).Table 1 Model parameters (before/after rescaling) and their meanings.Full size tableThe variable (lambda) can be considered an internal degree of freedom within the C population. In all of the models we study below, (lambda) dynamically stabilizes to a special value (lambda ^*) (a bifurcation point), as shown in Fig. 3a. Accordingly, a new equilibrium point (P_N) appears (on the line (mathscr {L}) in Fig. 2), at which all three species coexist. For comparison, Fig. 3b shows the equilibrium points if (lambda) is held fixed at any other values, which all result in the exclusion of one of the predators. Thus, heterogeneous interactions give rise to a new coexistence phase (see Fig. 4 below) by bringing the prey composition (lambda) to the value (lambda ^*), instead of having to fine-tune the interaction strengths. The exact conditions for this new equilibrium to be stable are detailed in “Methods”.Figure 3(a) Time series of (lambda) for systems with each kind of heterogeneity. All three systems stabilize at the same (lambda ^*) value, which is the bifurcation point in panel (b). (b) Equilibrium population of each species (X = A), B, or C, with (lambda) held fixed at different values. Solid curves represent stable equilibria and dashed curves represent unstable equilibria (see Eq. (9) in “Methods”). The vertical dashed line is where (lambda = lambda ^*), which is also the bifurcation point. Notice that the equilibrium population of C is maximized at this point (for (a_1 > a_2) and (b_2 > b_1)). Parameters used here are ((a_0, a_1, a_2, b_0, b_1, b_2, rho , eta _1, eta _2, kappa ) = (0.25, 0.5, 0.2, 0.4, 0.2, 0.6, 0.5, 0.05, 0.05, 50)).Full size imageInherent heterogeneityWe first consider a scenario where individuals of the prey species are born as one of two types with a fixed ratio, such that a fraction (rho) of the newborns are (C_2) and ((1-rho )) are (C_1). This could describe dimorphic traits, such as the winged and wingless morphs in aphids12 or the horned and hornless morphs in beetles13. We call this “inherent” heterogeneity, because individuals are born with a certain type and cannot change in later stages of life. The prey type given at birth determines the individual’s interaction strength with the predators. This kind of heterogeneity can be described by Eq. (4d) with (eta _1 = rho (1-C)) and (eta _2 = (1-rho ) (1-C)) (see “Methods”).Figure 4Phase diagrams showing regions of parameter space identified by the stable equilibrium points. Yellow region represents (P_C) (predators A, B both extinct), red represents (P_A) (A excludes B), blue represents (P_B) (B excludes A), and green represents (P_N) (A, B coexist). The middle point (black dot) is where the preferences of the two predators are identical, (a_2/a_0=b_2/b_0) and (b_1/b_0=a_1/a_0). The coexistence phase appears in all three kinds of heterogeneity modeled here. (a–d) Inherent heterogeneity: Individuals of the prey population are born in two types with a fixed composition (rho). In the extreme cases of (rho = 0) and 1, the prey is homogeneous and there is no coexistence of the predators. (e–h) Reversible heterogeneity: Individual prey can switch types with fixed switching rates (eta _1) and (eta _2). As the switching rates increase, the coexistence region shrinks because the prey population becomes effectively homogeneous (the occasional green spots are numerical artifacts because the time to reach the equilibrium becomes long in this limit). (i–l) Adaptive heterogeneity: The switching rates (eta _i) dynamically adapt to the predator densities, so as to maximize the growth rate of the prey. As the sharpness (kappa) of the sigmoidal decision function is increased, the prey adapts more optimally and the region of coexistence expands. Parameters used here are ((a_0, a_1, b_0, b_2) = (0.3, 0.5, 0.4, 0.6)).Full size imageThe stable equilibrium of the system can be represented by phase diagrams that show the identities of the species at equilibrium. We plot these phase diagrams by varying the parameters (a_2) and (b_1) while keeping (a_1) and (b_2) constant. As shown in Fig. 4a–d, the equilibrium state depends on the parameter (rho). In the limit (rho = 0) or 1, we recover the homogeneous case because only one type of C is produced. The corresponding phase diagrams (Fig. 4a, d) contain only two phases where either of the predators is excluded, illustrating the competitive exclusion principle. For intermediate values of (rho), however, there is a new phase of coexistence that separates the two exclusion phases (Fig. 4b, c). There are two such regions of coexistence, which touch at a middle point and open toward the bottom left and upper right, respectively. The middle point is at ((a_2/a_0 = b_2/b_0, b_1/b_0 = a_1/a_0)), where the feeding preferences of the two predators are identical (hence their niches fully overlap). Towards the origin and the far upper right, the predators consume one type of C each (hence their niches separate). The coexistence region in the bottom left is where the feeding rates of the predators are the lowest overall. There can be a region (yellow) where both predators go extinct, if their primary prey type alone is not enough to sustain each predator. Increasing the productivity of the system by increasing the birth rate ((beta _C)) of the prey eliminates this extinction region, whereas lowering productivity causes the extinction region to take over the lower coexistence region. Because the existence and identity of the phases is determined by the configuration of the equilibrium points (Fig. 2, see also section “Mathematical methods”), the qualitative shape of the phase diagram is not sensitive to changes of parameter values.The new equilibrium is not only where the predators A and B can coexist, but also where the prey species C grows to a larger density than what is possible for a homogeneous population. This is illustrated in Fig. 3b, which shows the equilibrium population of C if we hold (lambda) fixed at different values. The point (lambda = lambda ^*) is where the system with a dynamic (lambda) is stable, and also where the population of C is maximized (when A and B prefer different prey types). That means the population automatically stabilizes at the optimal composition of prey types. Moreover, the value of (C^*) at this coexistence point can even be larger than the equilibrium population of C when there is only one predator A or B. This is discussed further in section “Multiple-predator effects and emergent promotion of prey”. These results suggest that heterogeneity in interaction strengths can potentially be a strategy for the prey population to leverage the effects of multiple predators against each other to improve survival.Reversible heterogeneityWe next consider a scenario where individual prey can switch their types. This kind of heterogeneity can model reversible changes of phenotypes, i.e., trait changes that affect the prey’s interaction with predators but are not permanent. For example, changes in coat color or camouflage14,16,17, physiological changes such as defense15, and biomass allocation among tissues18,19. One could also think of the prey types as subpopulations within different spatial patches, if each predator hunts at a preferred patch and the prey migrate between the patches20,21. With some generalization, one could even consider heterogeneity in resources, such as nutrients located in different places, that can be reached by primary consumers, such as swimming phytoplankton22. We can model this “reversible” kind of heterogeneity by introducing switching rates from one prey type to the other. In Eq. (4d), (eta _1) and (eta _2) now represent the switching rates per capita from (C_1) to (C_2) and from (C_2) to (C_1), respectively. Here we study the simplest case where both rates are fixed.In the absence of the predators, the natural composition of the prey species given by the switching rates would be (rho equiv eta _1 / (eta _1 + eta _2)), and the rate at which (lambda) relaxes to this natural composition is (gamma equiv eta _1 + eta _2). Compared to the previous scenario where we had only one parameter (rho), here we have an additional parameter (gamma) that modifies the behavior of the system. Fig. 4e–h shows phase diagrams for the system as (rho) is fixed and (gamma) varies. We again find the new equilibrium (P_N) where all three species coexist. When (gamma) is small, the system has a large region of coexistence. As (gamma) is increased, this region is squeezed into a border between the two regions of exclusion, where the slope of the border is given by (eta _1/eta _2) as determined by the parameter (rho). However, this is different from the exclusion we see in the case of inherent heterogeneity, which happens only for (rho rightarrow 0) or 1, where the borders are horizontal or vertical (Fig. 4a,d). Here the predators exclude each other despite having a mixture of prey types in the population.This special limit can be understood as follows. For a large (gamma), (lambda) is effectively set to a constant value equal to (rho), because it has a very fast relaxation rate. In other words, the prey types exchange so often that the population always maintains a constant composition. In this limit, the system behaves as if it were a homogeneous system with effective interaction strengths (a_text {eff} = (1-rho ) , a_1 + rho , a_2) and (b_text {eff} = (1-rho ) , b_1 + rho , b_2). As in a homogeneous system, there is competitive exclusion between the predators instead of coexistence. This demonstrates that having a constant level of heterogeneity is not sufficient to cause coexistence. The overall composition of the population must be able to change dynamically as a result of population growth and consumption by predators.An interesting behavior is seen when we examine a point inside the shrinking coexistence region as (gamma) is increased. Typical trajectories of the system for such parameter values are shown in Fig. 5. As (gamma) increases, the system relaxes to the line (mathscr {L}) quickly, then slowly crawls along it towards the final equilibrium point (P_N). This is because increasing (gamma) increases the speed that (lambda) relaxes to (lambda ^*), and when (lambda rightarrow lambda ^*), (mathscr {L}) becomes marginally stable. Therefore, the attraction to (mathscr {L}) in the perpendicular direction is strong, but the attraction towards the equilibrium point along (mathscr {L}) is weak. This leads to a long transient behavior that makes the system appear to reach no equilibrium in a limited time23,24. It is especially true when there is noise in the dynamics, which causes the system to diffuse along (mathscr {L}) with only a weak drift towards the final equilibrium (Fig. 5). Thus, the introduction of a fast timescale (quick relaxation of (lambda) due to a large (gamma)) actually results in a long transient.Figure 5Trajectories of the system projected in the A-B plane, with parameters inside the coexistence region (by holding the position of (P_N) fixed). As (gamma) increases, the system tends to approach the line (mathscr {L}) quickly and then crawl along it. The grey trajectory is with independent Gaussian white noise ((sim mathscr {N}(0,0.5))) added to each variable’s dynamics. Noise causes the system to diffuse along (mathscr {L}) for a long transient period before coming to the equilibrium point (P_N). Parameters used here are ((a_0, a_1, a_2, b_0, b_1, b_2) = (0.2, 0.8, 0.5, 0.2, 0.6, 0.9)), chosen to place (P_N) away from the middle of (mathscr {L}) to show the trajectory drifting toward the equilibrium.Full size imageAdaptive heterogeneityA third kind of heterogeneity we consider is the change of interactions in time. By this we mean an individual can actively change its interaction strength with others in response to certain conditions. This kind of response is often invoked in models of adaptive foraging behavior, where individuals choose appropriate actions to maximize some form of fitness25,26. For example, we may consider two behaviors, resting and foraging, as our prey types. Different predators may prefer to strike when the prey is doing different things. In response, the prey may choose to do one thing or the other depending on the current abundances of different predators. Such behavioral modulation is seen, for example, in systems of predatory spiders and grasshoppers27. Phenotypic plasticity is also seen in plant tissues in response to consumers28,29,30.This kind of “adaptive” heterogeneity can be modeled by having switching rates (eta _1) and (eta _2) that are time-dependent. Let us assume that the prey species tries to maximize its population growth rate by switching to the more favorable type. From Eq. (4c), we see that the growth rate of C depends linearly on the composition (lambda) with a coefficient (u(A,B) equiv (a_1 – a_2) A + (b_1 – b_2) B). Therefore, when this coefficient is positive, it is favorable for C to increase (lambda) by switching to type (C_2). This can be achieved by having a positive switching rate (eta _2) whenever (u(A,B) > 0). Similarly, whenever (u(A,B) < 0), it is favorable for C to switch to type (C_1) by having a positive (eta _1). In this way, the heterogeneity of the prey population constantly adapts to the predator densities. We model such adaptive switching by making (eta _1) and (eta _2) functions of the coefficient u(A, B), e.g., (eta _1(u) = 1/(1+mathrm {e}^{kappa u})) and (eta _2(u) = 1/(1+mathrm {e}^{-kappa u})). The sigmoidal form of the functions means that the switching rate in the favorable direction for C is turned on quickly, while the other direction is turned off. The parameter (kappa) controls the sharpness of this transition.Phase diagrams for the system with different values of (kappa) are shown in Fig. 4i–l. A larger (kappa) means the prey adapts its composition faster and more optimally, which causes the coexistence region to expand. In the extreme limit, the system changes its dynamics instantaneously whenever it crosses the boundary where (u(A,B) = 0), like in a hybrid system31. Such a system can still reach a stable equilibrium that lies on the boundary, if the flow on each side of the boundary points towards the other side32. This is what happens in our system and, interestingly, the equilibrium is the same three-species coexistence point (P_N) as in the previous scenarios. The region of coexistence turns out to be largest in this limit (Fig. 4l).Our results suggest that the coexistence of the predators can be viewed as a by-product of the prey’s strategy to maximize its own benefit. The time-dependent case studied here represents a strategy that involves the prey evaluating the risk posed by different predators. This is in contrast to the scenarios studied above, where the prey population passively creates phenotypic heterogeneity regardless of the presence of the predators. These two types of behavior are analogous to the two strategies studied for adaptation in varying environments, i.e., sensing and bet-hedging33,34. The former requires accessing information about the current environment to make optimal decisions, whereas the latter relies on maintaining a diverse population to reduce detrimental effects caused by environmental changes. Here the varying abundances of the predators play a similar role as the varying environment. From this point of view, the heterogeneous interactions studied here can be a strategy of the prey species that is evolutionarily favorable. More

Ren, W. et al. Changes of periphyton abundance and biomass driven by factors specific to flooding inflow in a river inlet area in Erhai Lake, China. Front. Environ. Sci. 9, 680718. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2021.680718 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Woodruff, S. L. et al. The effects of a developing biofilm on chemical changes across the sediment-water interface in a freshwater environment. Int. Rev. Hydrobiol. 84(5), 509–532 (1999).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Muñoz, I., Real, M., Guasch, H., Navarro, E. & Sabater, S. Effects of atrazine on periphyton under grazing pressure. Aquat. Toxicol. 55(3–4), 239–249 (2001).
Google Scholar 
Hoagland, K. D., Roemer, S. C. & Rosowski, J. R. Colonization and community structure of two periphyton assemblages, with emphasis on the diatoms (Bacillariophyceae). Am. J. Bot. 69, 188–213. https://doi.org/10.2307/2443006 (1982).Article 

Google Scholar 
Steinman, A. D. & McIntire, C. D. Effects of current velocity and light energy on the structure of periphyton assemblages in laboratory streams. J. Phycol. 22, 352–361. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1529-8817.1986.TB00035.X (1986).Article 

Google Scholar 
Tonkin, J. D., Death, R. G. & Barquín, J. Periphyton control on stream invertebrate diversity: Is periphyton architecture more important than biomass?. Mar. Freshw. Res. 65(9), 818–829 (2014).
Google Scholar 
Beck, W. S., Markman, D. W., Oleksy, I. A., Lafferty, M. H. & Poff, N. L. Seasonal shifts in the importance of bottom-up and top-down factors on stream periphyton community structure. Oikos 128, 680–691. https://doi.org/10.1111/oik.05844 (2018).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Hogsden, K. L. & Harding, J. S. Consequences of acid mine drainage for the structure and function of benthic stream communities: A review. Freshw. Sci. 31, 108–120. https://doi.org/10.1899/11-091.1 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Sofi, M. S., Bhat, S. U., Rashid, I. & Kuniyal, J. C. The natural flow regime: A master variable for maintaining river ecosystem health. Ecohydrology 13(8), e2247. https://doi.org/10.1002/eco.2247 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Biggs, B. J. F. Eutrophication of streams and rivers: Dissolved nutrient-chlorophyllrelationship for benthic algae. J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc. 19, 17–31 (2000).
Google Scholar 
Ormerod, S. J., Dobson, M., Hildrew, A. G. & Townsend, C. Multiple stressors in freshwater ecosystems. Freshw. Biol. 55, 1–4 (2010).
Google Scholar 
Poff, et al. The natural flow regime: A paradigm for river conservation and restoration. Bioscience 47, 769–784 (1997).
Google Scholar 
Naiman, R. J., Décamps, H., & McClain, M. E. Riparia: Ecology, Conservation and Management of Streamside Communities, (Elsevier/Academic Press, 2005).Gleick, P. H. Water use. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 28, 275–314 (2003).
Google Scholar 
Jenkins, K. M. & Boulton, A. J. Connectivity in a dryland river: Short-term aquatic macroinvertebrate recruitment following floodplain inundation. Ecology 84(10), 2708–2723 (2003).
Google Scholar 
Biggs, B. J. F. Patterns in benthic algae of streams. In Algal Ecology in Freshwater Benthic Ecosystems (eds. Stevenson, R. J., Bothwell, M. L., & Lowe, R. L.) 31–56 (Academic Press, 1996).Smolar-Žvanut, N. & Mikoš, M. The impact of flow regulation by hydropower dams on the periphyton community in the Soča River, Slovenia. Hydrol. Sci. J. 59(5), 1032–1045. https://doi.org/10.1080/02626667.2013.834339 (2014).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Curry, C. J. & Baird, D. J. Habitat type and dispersal ability influence spatial structuring of larval Odonata and Trichoptera assemblages. Freshw. Biol. 60, 2142–2152 (2015).
Google Scholar 
Wu, N., Cai, Q. & Fohrer, N. Contribution of microspatial factors to benthic diatom communities. Hydrobiologia 732, 49–60. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-014-1843-3 (2014).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Mueller, M., Pander, J. & Geist, J. The effects of weirs on structural stream habitat and biological communities. J. Appl. Ecol 48(6), 1450–1461. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2011.02035.x (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Davies, P. M. et al. Flow–ecology relationships: closing the loop on effective environmental flows. Mar. Freshw. Res. 65(2), 133–141 (2013).
Google Scholar 
Jun, Y. C. et al. Spatial distribution of benthic macroinvertebrate assemblages in relation to environmental variables in Korean nationwide streams. Water 8(1), 27. https://doi.org/10.3390/w8010027 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Biggs, B. J. F. & Close, M. E. Periphyton biomass dynamics in gravel bed rivers: The relative effects of flows and nutrients. Freshw. Biol. 22, 209–231 (1989).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Jowett, I. & Biggs, B. J. F. Flood and velocity effects on periphyton and silt accumulation in two New Zealand rivers. N. Zeal. J. Mar. Freshw. Res. 31, 287–300 (1997).
Google Scholar 
Biggs, B. J. F., Goring, D. G. & Nikora, V. I. Subsidy and stress responses of stream periphyton to gradients in water velocity as a function of community growth form. J. Phycol. 34, 598–607 (1998).
Google Scholar 
Malmqvist, B. & Englund, G. Effects of hydropower-induced flow perturbations on mayfly (Ephemeroptera) richness and abundance in north Swedish river rapids. Hydrobiologia 341(2), 145–158 (1996).
Google Scholar 
Poff, N. L. & Ward, J. V. Herbivory under different flow regimes: A field experiment and test of a model with a benthic stream insect. Oikos 72, 179–188 (1995).
Google Scholar 
Poff, L. N., Wellnitz, T. & Monroe, J. B. Redundancy among three herbivorous insects across an experimental current velocity gradient. Oecologia 134, 262–269. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-002-1086-2 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
Vaughn, C. C. The role of periphyton abundance and quality in the microdistribution of a stream grazer, Helicopsyche borealis (Trichoptera: Helicopsychidae). Freshw. Biol. 16, 485–493 (1986).
Google Scholar 
Francoeur, S. N. Meta-analysis of lotic nutrient amendment experiments: Detecting and quantifying subtle responses. J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc. 20, 358–368 (2001).
Google Scholar 
Elser, J. J. et al. Global analysis of nitrogen and phosphorus limitation of primary producers in freshwater, marine and terrestrial ecosystems. Ecol. Lett. 10, 1135–1142 (2007).
Google Scholar 
Hillebrand, H. Meta-analysis of grazer control of periphyton biomass across aquatic ecosystems. J. Phycol. 45, 798–806 (2009).
Google Scholar 
Lamberti, G. A. The role of periphyton in benthic food webs. In Algal Ecology—Freshwater Benthic Ecosystems, 533–572 (eds. Stevenson, R. J., Bothwell, M. L. & Lowe, R. L.) (Academic Press, 1996).Lamberti, G. A. et al. Influence of grazer type and abundance on plant–herbivore interactions in streams. Hydrobiologia 306, 179–188 (1995).
Google Scholar 
Gregory, S. V. Plant–herbivore interactions in stream systems. In Stream Ecology (eds. Barnes, J. R. & Minshall, G. W.) 157–189 (Plenum, 1983).Lamberti, G. A. & Moore, J. W. Aquatic insects as primary consumers. In The Ecology of Aquatic Insects (eds Resh, V. H. & Rosenberg, D. M.) 164–195 (Praeger, 1984).
Google Scholar 
Sterner, R. W., Elser, J. J. & Hessen, D. O. Stoichiometric relationships among producers, consumers and nutrient cycling in pelagic ecosystems. Biogeochemistry 17, 49–67 (1992).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Kahlert, M. & Baunsgaard, M. T. Nutrient recycling—A strategy of a grazer community to overcome nutrient limitation. J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc. 18, 363–369 (1999).
Google Scholar 
Burkholder, J. M., Wetzel, R. G. & Klomparens, K. L. Direct comparison of phosphate uptake by adnate and loosely attached microalgae within and intact biofilm matrix. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 56, 2882–2890 (1990).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Steinman, A. D. Effects of grazers on freshwater benthic algae. In Algal Ecology: Freshwater Benthic Ecosystems (eds. Stevenson, R. J., Bothwell & Lowe, R. L.) 341–366 (Academic Press, 1996).Smucker, N. J. & Vis, M. L. Spatial factors contribute to benthic diatom structure in streams across spatial scales: Considerations for biomonitoring. Ecol. Indic. 11, 1191–1203 (2011).
Google Scholar 
Myers, et al. Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 403, 853–858 (2000).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Wang, J., Pan, F., Soininen, J., Heino, J. & Shen, J. Nutrient enrichment modifies temperature-biodiversity relationship in large scale field experiments. Nat. Commun. 7, 13 (2016).
Google Scholar 
Wu, et al. Flow regimes filter species traits of benthic diatom communities and modify the functional features of lowland streams-a nationwide scale study. Sci. Total Environ. 651, 357–366 (2019).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Nisar, M. A. Geospatial approach to study environmental characterization of a Kashmir wetland (Anchar) catchment with special reference to land use/land cover and changing climate. Ph.D Thesis, Sher-e-Kashmir University of Agricultural Sciences and Technology, Kashmir. Weblink. http://krishikosh.egranth.ac.in/handle/1/91309 (2012).Bhat, S. U., Sofi, A. H., Yaseen, T., Pandit, A. K. & Yousuf, A. R. Macro invertebrate community from Sonamarg streams of Kashmir Himalaya. Pak. J. Biol. Sci. 14(3), 182–194. https://doi.org/10.3923/pjbs.2011.182.194 (2011).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Baba, A. I., Sofi, A. H., Bhat, S. U., & Pandit, A. K. Periphytic algae of river Sindh in the Sonamarg area of Kashmir valley. J. Phytol. 3(6) (2011).Sofi, M. S., Rautela, K. S., Bhat, S. U., Rashid, I. & Kuniyal, J. C. Application of geomorphometric approach for the estimation of hydro-sedimentological flows and cation weathering rate: Towards understanding the sustainable land use policy for the Sindh Basin, Kashmir Himalaya. Water Air Soil Pollut. 232(7), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11270-021-05217-w (2021).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Romshoo, S. A., & Fayaz, M. Use of high resolution remote sensing for improving environmental Friendly tourism master planning in the Alpine Himalaya: A case study of Sonamarg tourist resort, Kashmir. J. Himalayan Ecol. Sustain. Dev. 14 (2019).Biggs, B. J. F. & Kilroy, C. Stream periphyton monitoring manual. Published by NIWA for Ministry for the Environment, 226 Christchurch, New Zealand: NIWA (2000).APHA. Standard Methods for Examination of Water and Wastewater, 22nd edn. (American Public Health Association, 2012).Cox, E. J. Identification of Freshwater Diatoms from Live Material. (Chapman and Hall, 1996). https://doi.org/10.1017/S0025315400041023.Krammer, K., & Lange-Bertalot, H. Bacillariophyceae, Part 5. English and French Translation of the Keys. (VEB Gustav Fisher Verlag, 2000).Reichardt, E. A remarkable association of diatoms in a spring habitat in the Grazer Bergland, Austria. In Iconographia Diatomologica (ed. Lange-Bertalot, H.) 419–479 (2004).Żelazna-Wieczorek, J. Diatom flora in springs of Lódz Hills (Central Poland). Biodiversity, taxonomy and temporal changes of epipsammic diatom assemblages in springs affected by human impact, 419. Volume 13 of Diatom monographs. Gantner. https://books.google.co.in/books?id=bdxeewAACAAJ (2011).Stark, J. D., Boothroyd, I. K. G., Harding, J. S., Maxted, J. R. & Scarsbrook, M. R. Protocols for sampling macroinvertebrates in wadeable streams. In New Zealand Macroinvertebrate Working Group Report no. 1. Prepared for the Ministry for the Environment. Sustainable Management Fund Project, 5103 (2001).Winterbourn, M. J. Sampling stream invertebrates. In Biological Monitoring of Freshwaters. Proceedings of the Seminar. Water and Soil Miscellaneous Publication No. 83 (eds. Pridmore, R. D., Cooper, A. B.) 241–258. (National Water and Soil Conservation Authority, 1985).Barbour, M. T., Gerritsen, J., Snyder, B. D., Stribling, J. B. Rapid bioassessment protocols for use in streams and wadeable rivers: periphyton, benthic macroinvertebrates and fish, 339. (United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, 1999).Malmqvist, B. & Hoffsten, P. O. Macroinvertebrate taxonomic richness, community structure and nestedness in Swedish streams. Fundam. Appl. Limnol. 150(1), 29–54. https://doi.org/10.1127/archiv-hydrobiol/150/2000/29 (2000).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ilmonen, J. & Paasivirta, L. Benthic macrocrustacean and insect assemblages in relation to spring habitat characteristics: Patterns in abundance and diversity. Hydrobiologia 533(1–3), 99–113. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-004-2399-4 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
Munasinghe, D. S. N., Najim, M. M. M., Quadroni, S. & Musthafa, M. M. Impacts of streamflow alteration on benthic macroinvertebrates by mini-hydro diversion in Sri Lanka. Sci. Rep. 11(1), 546. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-79576-5 (2021).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Edmondson, W. T. Fresh-Water Biology, 2nd ed. 1050–1056 (Wiley, 1959).Pennak, R. W. Freshwater Invertebrates of United States. (Wiley, 1978).McCafferty, W. P., Provonsha, A. V. Aquatic entomology: The fishermen’s and ecologists’ Illustrated Guide to Insects and their Relatives. (Jones and Bartlett Publishers, 1983).Borror, D., Triplehorn, C., Johnson, N. An Introduction to the Study of Insects, 6th ed. (Saunders College Publishing, 1989).Ward, J. V. Aquatic Insect Ecology, Biology and Habitat. (Wiley, 1992).Engblom, E. & Lingdell, P.E. Analyses of Benthic Invertebrates (ed. Nyman, L.) (1999).Bouchard, R. W. Guide to Aquatic Invertebrates of the Upper Midwest: Identification Manual for Students (University of Minnesota, 2004).
Google Scholar 
Subramanian, K. A. & Sivaramakrishnan, K. G. Aquatic Insects for Biomonitoring Freshwater Ecosystems—A Methodology Manual. (Ashoka Trust for Ecology and Environment (ATREE), 2007).Thorp, J. H., & Covich, A. P. (eds.) Ecology and Classification of North American Freshwater Invertebrates. (Academic Press, 2009).Allan, J. D. & Castillo, M.M. An introduction to fluvial ecosystems. In Stream Ecology: Structure and Function of Running Waters, 1–12 (2007).Oksanen, et al. Vegan: Community ecology package. In: R package version 2.4-3.McCune, B. & Grace, B. Analysis of Ecological Communities (MjM Software Design, 2016).Clarke, K. R. & Gorley, R. N. Primer v6 Permanova+ (Primer-E Ltd., 2006).
Google Scholar 
Salazar, G. EcolUtils: Utilities for Community Ecology Analysis. R package version 0.1 software (2018).Anderson, M. J., Ellingsen, K. E. & McArdle, B. H. Multivariate dispersion as a measure of beta diversity. Ecol. Lett. 9(6), 683–693 (2006).
Google Scholar 
Gardener, M. Community Ecology: Analytical Methods in Using R and Excel. (Pelagic Publishing, 2014).Chao, A. & Bunge, J. Estimating the number of species in a stochastic abundance model. Biometrics 58, 531–539. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0006-341X.2002.00531.x (2002).Article 
MATH 

Google Scholar 
Peres-Neto, P. R., Legendre, P., Dray, S. & Borcard, D. Variation partitioning of species data matrices: estimation and comparison of fractions. Ecology 87, 2614–2625 (2006).
Google Scholar 
Meng, X. L. et al. Responses of macroinvertebrates and local environment to short-term commercial sand dredging practices in a flood-plain lake. Sci. Total Environ. 631, 1350–1359 (2018).
Google Scholar 
Core Team, R. R: A Language and Environmental for Statistical Computing. (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2017).Wood, P. J. & Armitage, P. D. Biological effects of fine sediment in the lotic environment. Environ. Manag. 21, 203–217 (1997).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Marchant, R. Changes in the benthic invertebrate communities of the Thomson River, southeastern Australia, after dam construction. Regul. Rivers Res. Manag. 4, 71–89 (1989).
Google Scholar 
Gray, L. J. & Ward, J. V. Effects of sediment releases from a reservoir on stream macroinvertebrates. Hydrobiologia 96, 177–184 (1982).
Google Scholar 
Sand-Jensen, K., Moller, J. & Olesen, B. H. Biomass regulation of microbenthic algae in Danish lowland streams. Oikos 53, 332–340 (1988).
Google Scholar 
Lewis, M. A., Weber, D. E., Stanley, R. S. & Moore, J. C. Dredging impact on an urbanized Florida bayou: Effects on benthos and algal-periphyton. Environ. Pollut. 115(2), 161–171 (2001).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Biggs, B. J. Algal ecology in freshwater benthic ecosystems geology and landuse to the habitat template of periphyton in stream ecosystems. Freshw. Biol. 33, 419–438 (1995).
Google Scholar 
Taylor, et al. Can diatom-based pollution indices be used for biomonitoring in South Africa? A case study of the Crocodile West and Marico water management area. Hydrobiologia 592, 455–464 (2007).
Google Scholar 
Porter, et al. Efficacy of algal metrics for assessing nutrient and organic enrichment in flowing waters. Freshw. Biol. 53, 1036–1054 (2008).
Google Scholar 
Wetzel, R. G. & Likens, G. E. Limnological analyses, 3rd ed. In Nitrogen, Phosphorus, and Other Nutrients, 85–113. (Springer, 2000). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-3250-4.Wetzel, R. G. Attached algal-substrata interactions: Fact or myth, and when and how? vol. 17. In Periphyton of Freshwater Ecosystems (ed. Wetzel, R.) 207–215 (Springer, 1983). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-7293-3_28.Krajenbrink, H. J. et al. Diatoms as indicators of the effects of river impoundment at multiple spatial scales. PeerJ 7, e8092. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.8092 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Poff, N. L., Voelz, N. J., Ward, J. V. & Lee, R. E. Algal colonization under four experimentally-controlled current regimes in a high mountain stream. J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc. 9, 303–318 (1990).
Google Scholar 
Dodds, W. K. & Marra, J. L. Behaviors of the midge, Cricotopus (Diptera; Chironomidae) related to mutualism with Nostoc parmeloides (Cyanobacteria). Aquat. Insects 11, 201–208 (1989).
Google Scholar 
Tang, T., Niu, S. Q. & Dudgeon, D. Responses of epibenthic algal assemblages to water abstraction in Hong Kong streams. Hydrobiologia 703(1), 225–237. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-012-1362-z (2013).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Maheshwari, K., Vashistha, J., Paulose, P. V. & Agarwal, T. Seasonal changes in phytoplankton community of lake Ramgarh, India. Int. J. Curr. Microbiol. Appl. Sci. 4(11), 318–330 (2015).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Luttenton, M. R., & Baisden, C. The relationships among disturbance, substratum size and periphyton community structure. In Advances in Algal Biology: A Commemoration of the Work of Rex Lowe 111–117. (Springer, 2006).Uehlinger, U. Spatial and temporal variability of periphyton biomass in a prealpine river (Necker, Switzerland). Arch. Fur. Hydrobiol. 123, 219–237 (1991).
Google Scholar 
Hill, W. R. Effects of light. In Algal Ecology in Freshwater Benthic Ecosystems. 121–148 (eds. Stevenson, R. J., Bothwell, M. L., Lowe, R. L.) (Academic Press, 1996).DeNichola, D. M. Periphyton responses to temperature at different ecological levels. In Algal Ecology in Freshwater Benthic Ecosystems. (eds. Stevenson, R. J., Bothwell, M. L., Lowe, R. L.) 149–181 (Academic Press, 1996).O’Reilly, C. M. Seasonal dynamics of periphyton in a large tropical lake. Hydrobiologia 553, 293–301. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-005-0878-x (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
Borduqui, M. & Ferragut, C. Factors determining periphytic algae succession in a tropical hypereutrophic reservoir. Hydrobiologia 683, 109–122. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-011-0943-6 (2012).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
De Souza, M. L., Pellegrini, B. G. & Ferragut, C. Periphytic algal community structure in relation to seasonal variation and macrophyte richness in a shallow tropical reservoir. Hydrobiologia 755, 183–196. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-015-2232-2 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Prowse, T. D. River-ice hydrology. In Encyclopedia of Hydrological Sciences, vol. 4 (ed. Anderson, M. G.). (Wiley, 2005).Rusanov, A. G., Stanislavskaya, E. V. & Ács, É. Periphytic algal assemblages along environmental gradients in the rivers of the Lake Ladoga basin, Northwestern Russia: Implication for the water quality assessment. Hydrobiologia 695(1), 305–327 (2012).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Sofi, M. S., Hamid, A., Bhat, S. U., Rashid, I. & Kuniyal, J. C. Impact evaluation of the run-of-river hydropower projects on the water quality dynamics of the Sindh River in the Northwestern Himalayas. Environ. Monit. Assess. 194(9), 1–6 (2022).
Google Scholar 
MCCormick, P. V. Resource competition and species coexistence in freshwater algal assemblages. In Algal ecology—Freshwater Benthic Ecosystems (eds. Stevenson, R. J., Bothwell, M. L., Lowe, R. L.) 229–252 (Academic, 1996).Hillebrand, H., Worm, B. & Lotze, H. K. Marine microbenthic community structure regulated by nitrogen loading and grazing pressure. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 204, 27–38 (2000).CAS 

Google Scholar  More