Ecology

Cardinale, B. J. et al. Biodiversity loss and its impact on humanity. Nature 486, 59–67 (2012).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Gadgil, M., Berkes, F. & Folke, C. Indigenous knowledge for biodiversity conservation. Ambio 22, 151–156 (1993).
Google Scholar 
Gadgil, M., Berkes, F. & Folke, C. Indigenous knowledge: from local to global. Ambio 50, 967–969 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
The IPBES regional assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services for the Americas. IPBES https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3236252 (2018).Claes, J. et al. Valuing nature conservation: a methodology for quantifying the benefits of protecting the planet’s natural capital (McKinsey & Company, 2020).Retsa, A., Schelske, O., Wilke, B., Rutherford, G. & de Jong, R. Biodiversity and ecosystem services: a business case for re/insurance (Swiss Re, 2020).Petersson, M. & Stoett, P. Lessons learnt in global biodiversity governance. Int. Environ. Agreem. Polit. Law Econ. 22, 333–352 (2022).
Google Scholar 
Dasgupta, P. The economics of biodiversity: the Dasgupta review. GOV.UK www.gov.uk/official-documents. (2021).Furumo, P. R. & Lambin, E. F. Scaling up zero-deforestation initiatives through public-private partnerships: a look inside post-conflict Colombia. Glob. Environ. Change 62, 1–13 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hale, T. & Roger, C. Orchestration and transnational climate governance. Rev. Int. Organ. 9, 59–82 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ring, I. & Barton, D. N. Economic instruments in policy mixes for biodiversity conservation and ecosystem governance. in Handbook of Ecological Economics (eds Martinez-Alier, J. & Muradian, R.) Ch, 17 (Edward Elgar, 2015).Von Essen, M. & Lambin, E. Jurisdictional approaches to sustainable resource use. Front. Ecol. Environ. 19, 159–167 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Taylor, C., Pollard, S., Rocks, S. & Angus, A. Selecting policy instruments for better environmental regulation: a critique and future research agenda. Environ. Policy Gov. 22, 268–292 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ring, I. & Schröter-Schlaack, C. Instrument mixes for biodiversity policies. POLICYMIX Report https://policymix.nina.no (2011).Howlett, M. & Rayner, J. Design principles for policy mixes: cohesion and coherence in ‘new governance arrangements’. Policy Soc. 26, 1–18 (2007).
Google Scholar 
Soulé, M. The “new conservation”. Conserv. Biol. 27, 895–897 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Mace, G. M. Whose conservation? Science 345, 1558–1560 (2014).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Runhaar, H., Driessen, P. & Uittenbroek, C. Towards a systematic framework for the analysis of environmental policy integration. Environ. Policy Gov. 24, 233–246 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Visseren-Hamakers, I. J. Integrative governance: the relationships between governance instruments taking center stage. Environ. Plan. C. Polit. Space 36, 1341–1354 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lafferty, W. & Hovden, E. Environmental policy integration: towards an analytical framework. Environ. Polit. 12, 1–22 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
Milner-Gulland, E. J. et al. Four steps for the Earth: mainstreaming the post-2020 global biodiversity framework. One Earth 4, 75–87 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Decision adopted by the conference of the parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity. 14/3 Mainstreaming biodiversity in the energy and mining, infrastructure, manufacturing and processing sectors. Convention on Biological Diversity https://www.cbd.int/doc/decisions/cop-14/cop-14-dec-03-en.pdf (2018).Update of the zero draft of the post-2020 global biodiversity framework. Convention on Biological Diversity https://www.cbd.int/doc/c/3064/749a/0f65ac7f9def86707f4eaefa/post2020-prep-02-01-en.pdf (2020).Whitehorn, P. R. et al. Mainstreaming biodiversity: a review of national strategies. Biol. Conserv. 235, 157–163 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Alpízar, F. et al. Mainstreaming of natural capital and biodiversity into planning and decision-making: cases from Latin America and the Caribbean (IDB, 2020).Daily, G. Nature’s Services (Island Press, 1997).Hill, R. et al. Working with indigenous, local and scientific knowledge in assessments of nature and nature’s linkages with people. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 43, 8–20 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Baptiste, B. et al. Greening peace in Colombia. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 1, 1–3 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Biodiversidad en cifras. Instituto Alexander von Humboldt https://cifras.biodiversidad.co/ (2022).Censo nacional de población y vivienda. Estadísticas para grupos étnicos. DANE https://www.dane.gov.co/index.php/estadisticas-por-tema/demografia-y-poblacion/grupos-etnicos/informacion-tecnica (2018).Boyd, E., Corbera, E. & Estrada, M. UNFCCC negotiations (pre-Kyoto to COP-9): what the process says about the politics of CDM-sinks. Int. Environ. Agreem. Polit. Law Econ. 8, 95–112 (2008).
Google Scholar 
Alvarez, C. F. et al. Evaluación nacional de biodiversidad y servicios ecosistémicos: resumen para tomadores de decisión. Instituto Alexander von Humboldt. http://www.humboldt.org.co/images/pdf/10721/RTDFinalv290621.pdf (2021).Lambin, E. F. et al. Effectiveness and synergies of policy instruments for land use governance in tropical regions. Glob. Environ. Change 28, 129–140 (2014).Article 

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

Google Scholar 
Laikre, L. Genetic diversity is overlooked in international conservation policy implementation. Conserv. Genet. 11, 349–354 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ministerio de Ambiente y Desarrollo Sostenible. Resolución 1912 del 15 de Septiembre de 2017, listado de especies silvestres amenazadas de la diversidad biológica colombiana continental y marino costera en el territorio nacional. (2017). https://www.minambiente.gov.co/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/resolucion-1912-de-2017.pdfNewton, A. C. Biodiversity risks of adopting resilience as a policy goal. Conserv. Lett. 9, 369–376 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Jeanrenaud, S. Changing people/nature representations in international conservation discourses. IDS Bull. 33, 111–122 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
Louder, E. & Wyborn, C. Biodiversity narratives: stories of the evolving conservation landscape. Environ. Conserv. 47, 251–259 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bonilla-Mejía, L. & Higuera-Mendieta, I. Protected areas under weak institutions: evidence from Colombia. World Dev. 122, 585–596 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
African Development Bank Group et al. Joint statement by the Multilateral Development Banks at Paris, COP21. European Investment Bank https://www.eib.org/attachments/press/joint-mdb-statement-climate_nov-28_final.pdf (2021).Smith, T. et al. Biodiversity means business: reframing global biodiversity goals for the private sector. Conserv. Lett. 13, e12690 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Friedman, K., Garcia, S. M. & Rice, J. Mainstreaming biodiversity in fisheries. Mar. Policy 95, 209–220 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Turismo de naturaleza, oportunidad para conocer y proteger la biodiversidad de Colombia. MADS https://www.minambiente.gov.co/negocios-verdes/turismo-de-naturaleza-oportunidad-para-conocer-y-proteger-la-biodiversidad-de-colombia/ (2022).Pacheco, P., Schoneveld, G., Dermawan, A., Komarudin, H. & Djama, M. Governing sustainable palm oil supply: disconnects, complementarities, and antagonisms between state regulations and private standards. Regul. Gov. 14, 568–598 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Peters, B. G. & Pierre, J. Developments in intergovernmental relations: towards multi-level governance. Policy Polit. 29, 131–135 (2001).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lustig, N. Fiscal redistribution in middle income countries. OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working Papers. 171 (2015).Mooney, H. A. & Cleland, E. E. The evolutionary impact of invasive species. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 98, 5446–5451 (2001).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Rule of law index 2020. World Justice Project https://worldjusticeproject.org/sites/default/files/documents/WJP-ROLI-2020-Online_0.pdf (2020).Recommendation of the council on policy coherence for sustainable development OECD/LEGAL/0381. OECD https://www.oecd.org/gov/pcsd/recommendation-on-policy-coherence-for-sustainable-development-eng.pdf (2019).Arellana, J., Oviedo, D., Guzman, L. A. & Alvarez, V. Urban transport planning and access inequalities: a tale of two Colombian cities. Res. Transp. Bus. Manag. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rtbm.2020.100554 (2020).Leyes | Ministerio de Ambiente y Desarrollo Sostenible. MADS https://www.minambiente.gov.co/index.php/normativa/leyes (2021).Cavelier Adarve, I. & Rodríguez Becerra, M. in Nuevos Enfoques para el Estudio de las Relaciones Internacionales de Colombia (eds Tickner A.B. & Bitar, S.) Ch. 4 (Ediciones Uniandes-Universidad de los Andes, 2017).Política Nacional para la Gestión Integral de la biodiversidad y los Servicios Ecosistémicos (PNGIBSE) MADS (2012). https://www.minambiente.gov.co/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Poli%CC%81tica-Nacional-de-Gestio%CC%81n-Integral-de-la-Biodiver.pdfPotts, J., Wenban-Smith, M. & Turley, L. State of sustainability initiatives review: standards and the extractive economy (IISD, 2018).Junguito Bonnet, R. El papel de los gremios en la economía colombiana. Rev. Desarro. Soc. 82, 103–131 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Savvidou, G., Dzebo, A. & Atteridge, A. Aid Atlas: new tool to visualize development finance flows. JSTOR https://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep22982 (2019).BIOFIN- Movilizando recursos para la biodiversidad en Colombia, plan financiero. UNDP https://www.biofin.org/sites/default/files/content/knowledge_products/Plan%20Financiero%20Movilizando%20recursos%20para%20la%20biodiversidad%20en%20Colombia.pdf (2018).Echeverri, A. et al. Data for: a policy mix approach to biodiversity governance in Colombia (Dryad, 2022).Gibbs, G. Analyzing Qualitative Data (SAGE Publications, 2007).Maxwell, J. A. Qualitative Research Design: An Interactive Approach (SAGE Publications, 2012).Gould, R. K. et al. A protocol for eliciting nonmaterial values through a cultural ecosystem services frame. Conserv. Biol. 29, 575–586 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kremen, C. Managing ecosystem services: what do we need to know about their ecology? Ecol. Lett. 8, 468–479 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
Robinson, J. G. Ethical pluralism, pragmatism, and sustainability in conservation practice. Biol. Conserv. 144, 958–965 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Sandbrook, C. What is conservation? Oryx 49, 565–566 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ricotta, C. et al. Measuring the functional redundancy of biological communities: a quantitative guide. Methods Ecol. Evol. 7, 1386–1395 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Dı́az, S. & Cabido, M. Vive la différence: plant functional diversity matters to ecosystem processes. Trends Ecol. Evol. 16, 646–655 (2001).Article 

Google Scholar 
Laliberté, E. & Legendre, P. A distance-based framework for measuring functional diversity from multiple traits. Ecology 91, 299–305 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar  More

Levett, R. Sustainability indicators—integrating quality of life and environmental protection. J. R. Stat. Soc. A 161, 291–302 (1998).Article 

Google Scholar 
Harrison, P. A. Ecosystem services and biodiversity conservation: an introduction to the RUBICODE project. Biodivers. Conserv. 19, 2767–2772 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Otero, I. et al. Biodiversity policy beyond economic growth. Conserv. Lett. 13, e12713 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Seppelt, R., Lautenbach, S. & Volk, M. Identifying trade-offs between ecosystem services, land use, and biodiversity: a plea for combining scenario analysis and optimization on different spatial scales. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 5, 458–463 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Summary for Policymakers of the Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES, 2019); accessed from https://ipbes.net/document-library-categoriesDinerstein, E. et al. A “Global Safety Net” to reverse biodiversity loss and stabilize Earth’s climate. Sci. Adv. 6, eabb2824 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ostrom, E. A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social-ecological systems. Science 325, 419–422 (2009).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Bennett, E. M. et al. Linking biodiversity, ecosystem services, and human well-being: three challenges for designing research for sustainability. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 14, 76–85 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Haines-Young, R & Potschin, M. in Ecosystem Ecology: A New Synthesis (eds Raffaelli, D. & Frid, C.) 110–139 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2010).
Google Scholar 
Tallis, H. M. & Kareiva, P. Shaping global environmental decisions using socio-ecological models. Trends Ecol. Evol. 21, 562–568 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
Steffen, W. et al. Trajectories of the Earth System in the Anthropocene. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115, 8252–8259 (2018).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Wilson, K. A. et al. Conserving biodiversity efficiently: what to do, where, and when. PLoS Biol. 5, e223 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
Moilanen, A. et al. Prioritizing multiple-use landscapes for conservation: methods for large multi-species planning problems. Proc. R. Soc. B 272, 1885–1891 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
Moilanen, A. et al. Balancing alternative land uses in conservation prioritization. Ecol. Appl. 21, 1419–1426 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kremen, C. et al. Aligning conservation priorities across taxa in Madagascar with high-resolution planning tools. Science 320, 222–226 (2008).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Pressey, R. L., Cabeza, M., Watts, M. E., Cowling, R. M. & Wilson, K. A. Conservation planning in a changing world. Trends Ecol. Evol. 22, 583–592 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
Sayer, J. et al. Ten principles for a landscape approach to reconciling agriculture, conservation, and other competing land uses. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110, 8349–8356 (2013).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Watts, M. E. et al. Marxan with Zones: software for optimal conservation based land- and sea-use zoning. Environ. Model. Softw. 24, 1513–1521 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Arkema, K. K. et al. Embedding ecosystem services in coastal planning leads to better outcomes for people and nature. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA` 112, 7390–7395 (2015).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Wyborn, C. & Evans, M. C. Conservation needs to break free from global priority mapping. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 5, 1322–1324 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Jenkins, C. N., Pimm, S. L. & Joppa, L. N. Global patterns of terrestrial vertebrate diversity and conservation. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110, e2602–e2610 (2013).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Brum, F. T. et al. Global priorities for conservation across multiple dimensions of mammalian diversity. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, 7641–7646 (2017).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Silveira, F. A. et al. Biome Awareness Disparity is BAD for tropical ecosystem conservation and restoration. J. Appl. Ecol. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.14060 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bond, W. J. & Parr, C. L. Beyond the forest edge: ecology, diversity and conservation of the grassy biomes. Biol. Conserv. 143, 2395–2404 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Veach, V., Di Minin, E., Pouzols, F. M. & Moilanen, A. Species richness as criterion for global conservation area placement leads to large losses in coverage of biodiversity. Divers. Distrib. 23, 715–726 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Venter, O. et al. Targeting global protected area expansion for imperiled biodiversity. PLoS Biol. 12, e1001891 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Potapov, P. et al. The last frontiers of wilderness: tracking loss of intact forest landscapes from 2000 to 2013. Sci. Adv. 3, e1600821 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Jung, M. et al. Areas of global importance for conserving terrestrial biodiversity, carbon and water. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 5, 1499–1509 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
First Draft of the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework (CBD, 2021); accessed from www.cbd.int/conferences/post2020Westgate, M. J., Barton, P. S., Lane, P. W. & Lindenmayer, D. B. Global meta-analysis reveals low consistency of biodiversity congruence relationships. Nat. Commun. 5, 3899 (2014).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Cadotte, M. W. & Tucker, C. M. Difficult decisions: strategies for conservation prioritization when taxonomic, phylogenetic and functional diversity are not spatially congruent. Biol. Conserv. 225, 128–133 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Madhusudhan, M. D. & Vanak, A. T. (2022). Mapping the distribution and extent of India’s semi-arid open natural ecosystems. Journal of Biogeography 00, 1–11; https://doi.org/10.1111/jbi.14471Wastelands Atlas of India 2019 (Department of Land Resources, Ministry of Rural Development and the National Remote Sensing Centre, Indian Space Research Organisation, Department of Space, Government of India, 2019); www.dolr.gov.in/documents/wasteland-atlas-of-indiaKrishnaswamy, J., John, R. & Joseph, S. Consistent response of vegetation dynamics to recent climate change in tropical mountain regions. Glob. Change Biol. 20, 203–215 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Parida, B. R., Pandey, A. C. & Patel, N. R. Greening and browning trends of vegetation in India and their responses to climatic and non-climatic drivers. Climate 8, 92 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Piao, S. et al. Characteristics, drivers and feedbacks of global greening. Nat. Rev. Earth Environ. 1, 14–27 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Martin, D. A. et al. Land-use trajectories for sustainable land system transformations: identifying leverage points in a global biodiversity hotspot. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 119, e2107747119 (2022).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Pandit, M. K. & Grumbine, R. E. Potential effects of ongoing and proposed hydropower development on terrestrial biological diversity in the Indian Himalaya. Conserv. Biol. 26, 1061–1071 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Nayak, R. et al. Bits and pieces: forest fragmentation by linear intrusions in India. Land Use Policy 99, 104619 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Srinivasan, U. et al. Oil palm cultivation can be expanded while sparing biodiversity in India. Nat. Food 2, 442–447 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Vasudev, D., Goswami, V. R., Srinivas, N., Syiem, B. L. N. & Sarma, A. Identifying important connectivity areas for the wide‐ranging Asian elephant across conservation landscapes of Northeast India. Divers. Distrib. 27, 2510–2526 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Goswami, V. R., Vasudev, D., Joshi, B., Hait, P. & Sharma, P. Coupled effects of climatic forcing and the human footprint on wildlife movement and space use in a dynamic floodplain landscape. Sci. Total Environ. 758, 144000 (2021).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Rodrigues, R. G., Srivathsa, A. & Vasudev, D. Dog in the matrix: envisioning countrywide connectivity conservation for an endangered carnivore. J. Appl. Ecol. 59, 223–237 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ghosh-Harihar, M. et al. Protected areas and biodiversity conservation in India. Biol. Conserv. 237, 114–124 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hesselbarth, M. H., Sciaini, M., With, K. A., Wiegand, K. & Nowosad, J. landscapemetrics: an open‐source R tool to calculate landscape metrics. Ecography 42, 1648–1657 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Brennan, A. et al. Functional connectivity of the world’s protected areas. Science 376, 1101–1104 (2022).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Alves-Pinto, H. et al. Opportunities and challenges of other effective area-based conservation measures (OECMs) for biodiversity conservation. Perspect. Ecol. Conserv. 19, 115–120 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Joshi, A. A., Sankaran, M. & Ratnam, J. ‘Foresting’ the grassland: historical management legacies in forest-grassland mosaics in southern India, and lessons for the conservation of tropical grassy biomes. Biol. Conserv. 224, 144–152 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Chisholm, R. A. Trade-offs between ecosystem services: water and carbon in a biodiversity hotspot. Ecol. Econ. 69, 1973–1987 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Clark, B., DeFries, R. & Krishnaswamy, J. India’s commitments to increase tree and forest cover: consequences for water supply and agriculture production within the Central Indian Highlands. Water 13, 959 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Paul, S., Ghosh, S., Rajendran, K. & Murtugudde, R. Moisture supply from the Western Ghats forests to water deficit east coast of India. Geophys. Res. Lett. 45, 4337–4344 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Almond, R. E. A, Grooten, M., Juffe Bignoli, D. & Petersen, T. (eds) Living Planet Report 2022—Building a Nature-Positive Society (WWF, 2022).Srivathsa, A. et al. Opportunities for prioritizing and expanding conservation enterprise in India using a guild of carnivores as flagships. Environ. Res. Lett. 15, 064009 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Vira, B. et al., Negotiating trade-offs: choices about ecosystem services for poverty alleviation. Econ. Polit. Wkly 67–75 (2012).Ravindranath, N. H. & Murthy, I. K. Greening India mission. Curr. Sci. 99, 444–449 (2010).
Google Scholar 
Fedele, G., Donatti, C. I., Bornacelly, I. & Hole, D. G. Nature-dependent people: mapping human direct use of nature for basic needs across the tropics. Glob. Environ. Change 71, 102368 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Strassburg, B. B. et al. Global priority areas for ecosystem restoration. Nature 586, 724–729 (2020).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Belote, R. T. et al. Beyond priority pixels: delineating and evaluating landscapes for conservation in the contiguous United States. Landsc. Urban Plan. 209, 104059 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bawa, K. S. et al. Securing biodiversity, securing our future: a national mission on biodiversity and human well-being for India. Biol. Conserv. 253, 108867 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Rodgers, W. A. & Panwar, H. S. Planning a Wildlife Protected Area Network in India. Vol. 1. A Report (Wildlife Institute of India, 1988).Watts, M., Klein, C. J., Tulloch, V. J., Carvalho, S. B. & Possingham, H. P. Software for prioritizing conservation actions based on probabilistic information. Conserv. Biol. 35, 1299–1308 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Moilanen, A. et al. Zonation: spatial conservation planning methods and software. Version 4. User Manual. C-BIG; https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/33733621.pdf (2014).Sierra-Altamiranda, A. et al. Spatial conservation planning under uncertainty using modern portfolio theory and Nash bargaining solution. Ecol. Model. 423, 109016 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Silvestro, D., Goria, S., Sterner, T. & Antonelli, A. Improving biodiversity protection through artificial intelligence. Nat. Sustain. 5, 415–424 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Delavenne, J. et al. Systematic conservation planning in the eastern English Channel: comparing the Marxan and Zonation decision-support tools. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 69, 75–83 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Roy, P. S. et al. Development of decadal (1985–1995–2005) land use and land cover database for India. Remote Sens. 7, 2401–2430 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Champion, H. G. & Seth, S. K. A Revised Survey of the Forest Types of India (Government of India, 1968).BirdLife International World Database of Key Biodiversity Areas (KBA Partnership, version March 2021); accessed from www.keybiodiversityareas.org/kba-data/requestKoschke, L., Fürst, C., Frank, S. & Makeschin, F. A multi-criteria approach for an integrated land-cover-based assessment of ecosystem services provision to support landscape planning. Ecol. Indic. 21, 54–66 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Sarkar, T., Mishra, M. & Singh, R. B. in Regional Development Planning and Practice (eds Mishra, M. et al.) 205–232 (Springer, 2022). More

Oil palm plantations can supplant once biodiverse tropical forests. As planted areas expand, it is vital to plan landscapes to better balance biodiversity and oil palm production. Strategic ‘set-asides’ offer a key approach.In recent decades, oil palm has expanded spectacularly in some of the most biodiverse areas of the tropics, especially in Indonesia and Malaysia. This expansion has caused extensive deforestation (including loss of more than 2.1 million ha of primary forests in Borneo2, as well as other forests and agroforests), and management of plantations often relies heavily on clearing, herbicides and pesticides. This has generated many direct and indirect impacts on wildlife, ecosystems, climate and human communities3. Further expansion is ongoing, and global demand continues to rise4. More

Hibbing, M. E., Fuqua, C., Parsek, M. R. & Peterson, S. B. Bacterial competition: surviving and thriving in the microbial jungle. Nat. Rev. Microbiol 8, 15–25 (2010).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Cragg, G. M. & Newman, D. J. Natural products: a continuing source of novel drug leads. Biochim. Biophys. Acta 1830, 3670–3695 (2013).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Blin, K., Kim, H. U., Medema, M. H. & Weber, T. Recent development of antiSMASH and other computational approaches to mine secondary metabolite biosynthetic gene clusters. Brief. Bioinform. 20, 1103–1113 (2019).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Paoli, L. et al. Biosynthetic potential of the global ocean microbiome. Nature 607, 111–118 (2022).Gavriilidou, A. et al. Compendium of specialized metabolite biosynthetic diversity encoded in bacterial genomes. Nat. Microbiol. 7, 726–735 (2022).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Scherlach, K. & Hertweck, C. Triggering cryptic natural product biosynthesis in microorganisms. Org. Biomol. Chem. 7, 1753–1760 (2009).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Gilly, W. F., Beman, J. M., Litvin, S. Y. & Robison, B. H. Oceanographic and biological effects of shoaling of the oxygen minimum zone. Ann. Rev. Mar. Sci. 5, 393–420 (2013).
Google Scholar 
Schmidtko, S., Stramma, L. & Visbeck, M. Decline in global oceanic oxygen content during the past five decades. Nature 542, 335–339 (2017).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Naqvi, S. W. A. et al. Marine hypoxia/anoxia as a source of CH 4 and N 2 O. Biogeosciences 7, 2159–2190 (2010).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Scranton, M. I., Sayles, F. L., Bacon, M. P. & Brewer, P. G. Temporal changes in the hydrography and chemistry of the Cariaco Trench. Deep-Sea Res. Part A. Oceanogr. Res. Pap. 34, 945–963 (1987).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Taylor, G. T. et al. Chemoautotrophy in the redox transition zone of the Cariaco Basin: a significant midwater source of organic carbon production. Limnol. Oceanogr. 46, 148–163 (2001).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Scranton, M. I., Astor, Y., Bohrer, R., Ho, T.-Y. & Muller-Karger, F. Controls on temporal variability of the geochemistry of the deep Cariaco Basin. Deep-Sea Res. I Oceanogr. Res. Pap. 48, 1605–1625 (2001).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Scranton, M. I. et al. Interannual and subdecadal variability in the nutrient geochemistry of the Cariaco Basin. Oceanography 27, 148–159 (2014).
Google Scholar 
Dalsgaard, T., Thamdrup, B., Farías, L. & Revsbech, N. P. Anammox and denitrification in the oxygen minimum zone of the eastern South Pacific. Limnol. Oceanogr. 57, 1331–1346 (2012).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Canfield, D. E. et al. A cryptic sulfur cycle in oxygen-minimum–zone waters off the Chilean coast. Science 330, 1375–1378 (2010).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Schlosser, C. et al. H 2 S events in the Peruvian oxygen minimum zone facilitate enhanced dissolved Fe concentrations. Sci. Rep. 8, 1–8 (2018).
Google Scholar 
Rapp, I. et al. Controls on redox-sensitive trace metals in the Mauritanian oxygen minimum zone. Biogeosciences 16, 4157–4182 (2019).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Love, M. I., Huber, W. & Anders, S. Moderated estimation of fold change and dispersion for RNA-seq data with DESeq2. Genome Biol. 15, 1–21 (2014).
Google Scholar 
Blin, K. et al. antiSMASH 6.0: improving cluster detection and comparison capabilities. Nucleic Acids Res. 49, W29–W35 (2021).Edgcomb, V. P. et al. Comparison of Niskin vs. in situ approaches for analysis of gene expression in deep Mediterranean Sea water samples. Deep-Sea Res. II: Top. Stud. Oceanogr. 129, 213–222 (2016).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Cabello-Yeves, P. J. et al. The microbiome of the Black Sea water column analyzed by shotgun and genome centric metagenomics. Environ. Microbiome 16, 1–15 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Suter, E. A., Pachiadaki, M., Taylor, G. T., Astor, Y. & Edgcomb, V. P. Free‐living chemoautotrophic and particle‐attached heterotrophic prokaryotes dominate microbial assemblages along a pelagic redox gradient. Environ. Microbiol. 20, 693–712 (2018).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Mestre, M. et al. Spatial variability of marine bacterial and archaeal communities along the particulate matter continuum. Mol. Ecol. 26, 6827–6840 (2017).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Li, J. et al. Characterization of particle-associated and free-living bacterial and archaeal communities along the water columns of the South China Sea. Biogeosciences 18, 113–133 (2021).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Mestre, M., Borrull, E., Sala, M. M. & Gasol, J. M. Patterns of bacterial diversity in the marine planktonic particulate matter continuum. ISME J. 11, 999–1010 (2017).
Google Scholar 
Pelve, E. A., Fontanez, K. M. & DeLong, E. F. Bacterial succession on sinking particles in the ocean’s interior. Front. Microbiol. 8, 2269 (2017).
Google Scholar 
Duret, M. T., Lampitt, R. S. & Lam, P. Prokaryotic niche partitioning between suspended and sinking marine particles. Environ. Microbiol. Rep. 11, 386–400 (2019).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Sinninghe Damsté, J. S., Rijpstra, W. I. C., Geenevasen, J. A. J., Strous, M. & Jetten, M. S. M. Structural identification of ladderane and other membrane lipids of planctomycetes capable of anaerobic ammonium oxidation (anammox). FEBS J. 272, 4270–4283 (2005).
Google Scholar 
Fuchsman, C. A., Staley, J. T., Oakley, B. B., Kirkpatrick, J. B. & Murray, J. W. Free-living and aggregate-associated Planctomycetes in the Black Sea. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 80, 402–416 (2012).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Scherlach, K. & Hertweck, C. Mining and unearthing hidden biosynthetic potential. Nat. Commun. 12, 1–12 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Letzel, A.-C., Pidot, S. J. & Hertweck, C. A genomic approach to the cryptic secondary metabolome of the anaerobic world. Nat. Prod. Rep. 30, 392–428 (2013).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Navarro-Muñoz, J. C. et al. A computational framework to explore large-scale biosynthetic diversity. Nat. Chem. Biol. 16, 60–68 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Mungan, M. D. et al. ARTS 2.0: feature updates and expansion of the antibiotic resistant target seeker for comparative genome mining. Nucleic Acids Res. 48, W546–W552 (2020).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Alanjary, M. et al. The antibiotic resistant target seeker (ARTS), an exploration engine for antibiotic cluster prioritization and novel drug target discovery. Nucleic Acids Res. 45, W42–W48 (2017).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Waters, A. L., Hill, R. T., Place, A. R. & Hamann, M. T. The expanding role of marine microbes in pharmaceutical development. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 21, 780–786 (2010).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Long, R. A. & Azam, F. Antagonistic interactions among marine pelagic bacteria. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 67, 4975–4983 (2001).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Graça, A. P., Calisto, R. & Lage, O. M. Planctomycetes as novel source of bioactive molecules. Front. Microbiol. 7, 1241 (2016).
Google Scholar 
Murphy, C. L. et al. Genomes of novel Myxococcota reveal severely curtailed machineries for predation and cellular differentiation. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 87, e01706–e01721 (2021).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Pachiadaki, M. G. et al. Charting the complexity of the marine microbiome through single-cell genomics. Cell 179, 1623–1635 (2019).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Charlesworth, J. C. & Burns, B. P. Untapped resources: biotechnological potential of peptides and secondary metabolites in archaea. Archaea 2015, 282035 (2015).Wang, S. & Lu, Z. in Biocommunication of Archaea (ed. Witzany, G.) 67–101 (Springer, 2017).Castelle, C. J. et al. Genomic expansion of domain archaea highlights roles for organisms from new phyla in anaerobic carbon cycling. Curr. Biol. 25, 690–701 (2015).CAS 

Google Scholar 
McInnes, L., Healy, J. & Melville, J. Umap: uniform manifold approximation and projection for dimension reduction. Journal of Open Source Software 3, 861 (2018).Rattray, J. E. et al. A comparative genomics study of genetic products potentially encoding ladderane lipid biosynthesis. Biol. Direct 4, 1–16 (2009).
Google Scholar 
Orakov, A. et al. GUNC: detection of chimerism and contamination in prokaryotic genomes. Genome Biol. 22, 1–19 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Choudoir, M. J., Pepe-Ranney, C. & Buckley, D. H. Diversification of secondary metabolite biosynthetic gene clusters coincides with lineage divergence in Streptomyces. Antibiotics 7, 12 (2018).
Google Scholar 
Li, Y. & Rebuffat, S. The manifold roles of microbial ribosomal peptide–based natural products in physiology and ecology. J. Biol. Chem. 295, 34–54 (2020).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Ma, L. & Payne, S. M. AhpC is required for optimal production of enterobactin by Escherichia coli. J. Bacteriol. 194, 6748–6757 (2012).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Davis, C. et al. The role of glutathione S-transferase GliG in gliotoxin biosynthesis in Aspergillus fumigatus. Chem. Biol. 18, 542–552 (2011).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Kautsar, S. A. et al. MIBiG 2.0: a repository for biosynthetic gene clusters of known function. Nucleic Acids Res. 48, D454–D458 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Wang, Y. et al. Phenazine-1-carboxylic acid promotes bacterial biofilm development via ferrous iron acquisition. J. Bacteriol. 193, 3606–3617 (2011).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Laursen, J. B. & Nielsen, J. Phenazine natural products: biosynthesis, synthetic analogues, and biological activity. Chem. Rev. 104, 1663–1686 (2004).CAS 

Google Scholar 
McParland, E. et al. Cycling of suspended particulate phosphorus in the redoxcline of the Cariaco Basin. Mar. Chem. 176, 64–74 (2015).CAS 

Google Scholar 
McRose, D. L. & Newman, D. K. Redox-active antibiotics enhance phosphorus bioavailability. Science 371, 1033–1037 (2021).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Cundliffe, E. How antibiotic-producing organisms avoid suicide. Annu. Rev. Microbiol. 43, 207–233 (1989).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Webber, M. A. & Piddock, L. J. V. The importance of efflux pumps in bacterial antibiotic resistance. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 51, 9–11 (2003).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Vetting, M. W. et al. Pentapeptide repeat proteins. Biochemistry 45, 1–10 (2006).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Kauppinen, S., Siggaard-Andersen, M. & von Wettstein-Knowles, P. β-ketoacyl-ACP synthase I of Escherichia coli: nucleotide sequence of thefabB gene and identification of the cerulenin binding residue. Carlsberg Res. Commun. 53, 357–370 (1988).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Kloosterman, A. M., Shelton, K. E., van Wezel, G. P., Medema, M. H. & Mitchell, D. A. RRE-Finder: a genome-mining tool for class-independent RiPP discovery. mSystems 5, e00267–20 (2020).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Barry, S. M. & Challis, G. L. Mechanism and catalytic diversity of Rieske non-heme iron-dependent oxygenases. ACS Catal. 3, 2362–2370 (2013).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Benjdia, A., Balty, C. & Berteau, O. Radical SAM enzymes in the biosynthesis of ribosomally synthesized and post-translationally modified peptides (RiPPs). Front. Chem. 5, 87 (2017).
Google Scholar 
Pandey, R. P., Parajuli, P. & Sohng, J. K. Metabolic engineering of glycosylated polyketide biosynthesis. Emerg. Top. Life Sci. 2, 389–403 (2018).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Argueta, E. A., Amoh, A. N., Kafle, P. & Schneider, T. L. Unusual non-enzymatic flavin catalysis enhances understanding of flavoenzymes. FEBS Lett. 589, 880–884 (2015).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Jarrett, J. T. Surprise! A hidden B12 cofactor catalyzes a radical methylation. J. Biol. Chem. 294, 11726–11727 (2019).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Byers, D. M. & Gong, H. Acyl carrier protein: structure–function relationships in a conserved multifunctional protein family. Biochem. Cell Biol. 85, 649–662 (2007).CAS 

Google Scholar 
D’Andrea, L. D. & Regan, L. TPR proteins: the versatile helix. Trends Biochem. Sci. 28, 655–662 (2003).
Google Scholar 
Ganesh, S. et al. Size-fraction partitioning of community gene transcription and nitrogen metabolism in a marine oxygen minimum zone. ISME J. 9, 2682–2696 (2015).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Ganesh, S., Parris, D. J., DeLong, E. F. & Stewart, F. J. Metagenomic analysis of size-fractionated picoplankton in a marine oxygen minimum zone. ISME J. 8, 187–211 (2014).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Fuchsman, C. A., Kirkpatrick, J. B., Brazelton, W. J., Murray, J. W. & Staley, J. T. Metabolic strategies of free-living and aggregate-associated bacterial communities inferred from biologic and chemical profiles in the Black Sea suboxic zone. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 78, 586–603 (2011).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Alldredge, A. L. & Cohen, Y. Can microscale chemical patches persist in the sea? Microelectrode study of marine snow, fecal pellets. Science 235, 689–691 (1987).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Scranton, M. I. et al. Temporal variability in the nutrient chemistry of the Cariaco Basin. in Past and Present Water Column Anoxia. Nato Science Series: IV: Earth and Environmental Sciences, Vol. 64. (ed. Neretin, L.) 139–160 (Springer Dordrecht, 2006).Firn, R. D. & Jones, C. G. The evolution of secondary metabolism–a unifying model. Mol. Microbiol. 37, 989–994 (2000).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Junkins, E. N., McWhirter, J. B., McCall, L.-I. & Stevenson, B. S. Environmental structure impacts microbial composition and secondary metabolism. ISME Commun. 2, 1–10 (2022).
Google Scholar 
Penn, K. et al. Genomic islands link secondary metabolism to functional adaptation in marine Actinobacteria. ISME J. 3, 1193–1203 (2009).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Thaker, M. N. et al. Identifying producers of antibacterial compounds by screening for antibiotic resistance. Nat. Biotechnol. 31, 922–927 (2013).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Taylor, C. D. & Doherty, K. W. Submersible Incubation Device (SID), autonomous instrumentation for the in situ measurement of primary production and other microbial rate processes. Deep-Sea Res. Part A. Oceanogr. Res. Pap. 37, 343–358 (1990).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Pachiadaki, M. G., Rédou, V., Beaudoin, D. J., Burgaud, G. & Edgcomb, V. P. Fungal and prokaryotic activities in the marine subsurface biosphere at Peru Margin and Canterbury Basin inferred from RNA-based analyses and microscopy. Front. Microbiol. 7, 846 (2016).
Google Scholar 
Frias-Lopez, J. et al. Microbial community gene expression in ocean surface waters. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 105, 3805–3810 (2008).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Bolger, A. M., Lohse, M. & Usadel, B. Trimmomatic: a flexible trimmer for Illumina sequence data. Bioinformatics 30, 2114–2120 (2014).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Stewart, F. J., Ulloa, O. & DeLong, E. F. Microbial metatranscriptomics in a permanent marine oxygen minimum zone. Environ. Microbiol. 14, 23–40 (2012).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Conroy, J. L. et al. Unprecedented recent warming of surface temperatures in the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean. Nat. Geosci. 2, 46–50 (2009).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Bankevich, A. et al. SPAdes: a new genome assembly algorithm and its applications to single-cell sequencing. J. Comput. Biol. 19, 455–477 (2012).MathSciNet 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Kang, D. D., Froula, J., Egan, R. & Wang, Z. MetaBAT, an efficient tool for accurately reconstructing single genomes from complex microbial communities. PeerJ 3, e1165 (2015).
Google Scholar 
Parks, D. H., Imelfort, M., Skennerton, C. T., Hugenholtz, P. & Tyson, G. W. CheckM: assessing the quality of microbial genomes recovered from isolates, single cells, and metagenomes. Genome Res. 25, 1043–1055 (2015).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Chaumeil, P.-A., Mussig, A. J., Hugenholtz, P. & Parks, D. H. GTDB-Tk: a toolkit to classify genomes with the Genome Taxonomy Database. Bioinformatics 36, 1925–1927 (2020).Giovannoni, S. J., Britschgi, T. B., Moyer, C. L. & Field, K. G. Genetic diversity in Sargasso Sea bacterioplankton. Nature 345, 60–63 (1990).ADS 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Eren, A. M. et al. Anvi’o: an advanced analysis and visualization platform for ‘omics data. PeerJ 3, e1319 (2015).
Google Scholar 
Delmont, T. O. et al. Nitrogen-fixing populations of Planctomycetes and Proteobacteria are abundant in surface ocean metagenomes. Nat. Microbiol. 3, 804–813 (2018).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Langmead, B. & Salzberg, S. L. Fast gapped-read alignment with Bowtie 2. Nat. Methods 9, 357–359 (2012).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Li, H. et al. The sequence alignment/map format and SAMtools. Bioinformatics 25, 2078–2079 (2009).
Google Scholar 
Team, R. C. R: a language and environment for statistical computing (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2013).Marçais, G. et al. MUMmer4: a fast and versatile genome alignment system. PLoS Comput. Biol. 14, e1005944 (2018).
Google Scholar 
Li, H. Aligning sequence reads, clone sequences and assembly contigs with BWA-MEM. arXiv, 1303.3997v2 (2013).Ben Woodcroft. CoverM. https://github.com/wwood/CoverM (2022).Hyatt, D. et al. Prodigal: prokaryotic gene recognition and translation initiation site identification. BMC Bioinforma. 11, 1–11 (2010).
Google Scholar 
Jones, P. et al. InterProScan 5: genome-scale protein function classification. Bioinformatics 30, 1236–1240 (2014).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Seemann, T. Prokka: rapid prokaryotic genome annotation. Bioinformatics 30, 2068–2069 (2014).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Li, H. Minimap2: pairwise alignment for nucleotide sequences. Bioinformatics 34, 3094–3100 (2018).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Bray, N. L., Pimentel, H., Melsted, P. & Pachter, L. Near-optimal probabilistic RNA-seq quantification. Nat. Biotechnol. 34, 525–527 (2016).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Konopka, T. umap. Uniform manifold approximation and projection (2018).Wickham, H., Chang, W. & Wickham, M. H. Package ‘ggplot2’. Create elegant data visualisations using the grammar of graphics. Version 2, 1–189 (2016).
Google Scholar 
Hahsler, M., Piekenbrock, M. & Doran, D. dbscan: fast density-based clustering with R. J. Stat. Softw. 91, 1–30 (2019).
Google Scholar 
Geller-McGrath, D. et al. Diverse secondary metabolites are expressed in particle-associated and free-living microorganisms of the permanently anoxic Cariaco Basin. https://github.com/d-mcgrath/cariaco_basin (2023). More

Saatchi, S. S. et al. Benchmark map of forest carbon stocks in tropical regions across three continents. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. 108, 9899–9904 (2011).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Baccini, A. et al. Estimated carbon dioxide emissions from tropical deforestation improved by carbon-density maps. Nat. Clim. Change 2, 182–185 (2012).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Xu, L. et al. Changes in global terrestrial live biomass over the 21st century. Sci. Adv. 7, eabe9829 (2021).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Betts, R. A. et al. The role of ecosystem-atmosphere interactions in simulated Amazonian precipitation decrease and forest dieback under global climate warming. Theor. Appl. Climatol. 78, 157–175 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
Cox, P. M. et al. Sensitivity of tropical carbon to climate change constrained by carbon dioxide variability. Nature 494, 341–344 (2013).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Rammig, A. et al. Estimating the risk of Amazonian forest dieback. N. Phytol. 187, 694–706 (2010).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Huntingford, C. et al. Towards quantifying uncertainty in predictions of Amazon ‘dieback’. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 363, 1857–1864 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Galbraith, D. et al. Multiple mechanisms of Amazonian forest biomass losses in three dynamic global vegetation models under climate change. N. Phytol. 187, 647–665 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kumar, D., Pfeiffer, M., Gaillard, C., Langan, L. & Scheiter, S. Climate change and elevated CO2 favor forest over savanna under different future scenarios in South Asia. Biogeosciences 18, 2957–2979 (2021).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Huntingford, C. et al. Simulated resilience of tropical rainforests to CO2-induced climate change. Nat. Geosci. 6, 268–273 (2013).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Brienen, R. J. W. et al. Forest carbon sink neutralized by pervasive growth-lifespan trade-offs. Nat. Commun. 11, 4241 (2020).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Koch, A., Hubau, W. & Lewis, S. L. Earth system models are not capturing present-day tropical forest carbon dynamics. Earths Future 9, e2020EF001874 (2021).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Negrón-Juárez, R. I., Koven, C. D., Riley, W. J., Knox, R. G. & Chambers, J. Q. Observed allocations of productivity and biomass, and turnover times in tropical forests are not accurately represented in CMIP5 Earth system models. Environ. Res. Lett. 10, 064017 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Fleischer, K. et al. Amazon forest response to CO2 fertilization dependent on plant phosphorus acquisition. Nat. Geosci. 12, 736–741 (2019).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Terrer, C. et al. Nitrogen and phosphorus constrain the CO2 fertilization of global plant biomass. Nat. Clim. Change 9, 684–689 (2019).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Malhi, Y. et al. Exploring the likelihood and mechanism of a climate-change-induced dieback of the Amazon rainforest. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. 106, 20610–20615 (2009).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Zelazowski, P., Malhi, Y., Huntingford, C., Sitch, S. & Fisher, J. B. Changes in the potential distribution of humid tropical forests on a warmer planet. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 369, 137–160 (2011).
Google Scholar 
Huang, L. et al. Drought dominates the interannual variability in global terrestrial net primary production by controlling semi-arid ecosystems. Sci. Rep. 6, 24639 (2016).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Castanho, A. D. A. et al. Potential shifts in the aboveground biomass and physiognomy of a seasonally dry tropical forest in a changing climate. Environ. Res. Lett. 15, 034053 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Santoro, M. & Cartus, O. ESA Biomass Climate Change Initiative (Biomass_cci): global datasets of forest above-ground biomass for the years 2010, 2017 and 2018, v3. NERC EDS Centre for Environmental Data Analysis https://doi.org/10.5285/5f331c418e9f4935b8eb1b836f8a91b8 (2021).Baccini, A. et al. Tropical forests are a net carbon source based on aboveground measurements of gain and loss. Science 358, 230–234 (2017).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Harris, N. L. et al. Global maps of twenty-first century forest carbon fluxes. Nat. Clim. Change 11, 234–240 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gatti, L. V. et al. Amazonia as a carbon source linked to deforestation and climate change. Nature 595, 388–393 (2021).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Qin, Y. et al. Carbon loss from forest degradation exceeds that from deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon. Nat. Clim. Change 11, 442–448 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Brienen, R. J. W. et al. Long-term decline of the Amazon carbon sink. Nature 519, 344–348 (2015).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Hubau, W. et al. Asynchronous carbon sink saturation in African and Amazonian tropical forests. Nature 579, 80–87 (2020).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Phillips, O. L. et al. Drought sensitivity of the amazon rainforest. Science 323, 1344–1347 (2009).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Ross, C. W. et al. Woody-biomass projections and drivers of change in sub-Saharan Africa. Nat. Clim. Change 11, 449–455 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Larjavaara, M., Lu, X., Chen, X. & Vastaranta, M. Impact of rising temperatures on the biomass of humid old-growth forests of the world. Carbon Balance Manag. 16, 31 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Romps, D. M., Seeley, J. T., Vollaro, D. & Molinari, J. Projected increase in lightning strikes in the United States due to global warming. Science 346, 851–854 (2014).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Gora, E. M., Bitzer, P. M., Burchfield, J. C., Gutierrez, C. & Yanoviak, S. P. The contributions of lightning to biomass turnover, gap formation and plant mortality in a tropical forest. Ecology 102, e03541 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Magnabosco Marra, D. et al. Windthrows control biomass patterns and functional composition of Amazon forests. Glob. Change Biol. 24, 5867–5881 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Negrón-Juárez, R. I. et al. Windthrow variability in central amazonia. Atmosphere 8, 28 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Silva Junior, C. H. L. et al. Persistent collapse of biomass in Amazonian forest edges following deforestation leads to unaccounted carbon losses. Sci. Adv. 6, 40 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Yin, Y. et al. Fire decline in dry tropical ecosystems enhances decadal land carbon sink. Nat. Commun. 11, 1900 (2020).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Koch, A. & Kaplan, J. O. Tropical forest restoration under future climate change. Nat. Clim. Change 12, 279–283 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wang, S. et al. Recent global decline of CO2 fertilization effects on vegetation photosynthesis. Science 370, 1295–1300 (2020).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Case, M. F. & Staver, A. C. Fire prevents woody encroachment only at higher-than-historical frequencies in a South African savanna. J. Appl. Ecol. 54, 955–962 (2017).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Mau, A. C., Reed, S. C., Wood, T. E. & Cavaleri, M. A. Temperate and tropical forest canopies are already functioning beyond their thermal thresholds for photosynthesis. Forests 9, 47 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kolby Smith, W. et al. Large divergence of satellite and Earth system model estimates of global terrestrial CO2 fertilization. Nat. Clim. Change 6, 306–310 (2016).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Martens, C. et al. Large uncertainties in future biome changes in Africa call for flexible climate adaptation strategies. Glob. Change Biol. 27, 340–358 (2021).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Doughty, C. E. & Goulden, M. L. Are tropical forests near a high temperature threshold?. J. Geophys. Res. Biogeosciences 113, G00B07 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Doughty, C. E. & Goulden, M. L. Seasonal patterns of tropical forest leaf area index and CO2 exchange. J. Geophys. Res. Biogeosciences 113, G00B06 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Langenbrunner, B., Pritchard, M. S., Kooperman, G. J. & Randerson, J. T. Why does amazon precipitation decrease when tropical forests respond to increasing CO2? Earths Future 7, 450–468 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Harris, I., Osborn, T. J., Jones, P. & Lister, D. Version 4 of the CRU TS monthly high-resolution gridded multivariate climate dataset. Sci. Data 7, 109 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Maurer, E. P., Brekke, L., Pruitt, T. & Duffy, P. B. Fine-resolution climate projections enhance regional climate change impact studies. EOS Trans. Am. Geophys. Union 88, 504–504 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
Reclamation. Downscaled CMIP3 and CMIP5 Climate and Hydrology Projections: Release of Hydrology Projections, Comparison with preceding Information, and Summary of User Needs. https://gdo-dcp.ucllnl.org/downscaled_cmip_projections/techmemo/BCSD5HydrologyMemo.pdf (2014).Silva de Miranda, P. L. et al. Using tree species inventories to map biomes and assess their climatic overlaps in lowland tropical South America. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 27, 899–912 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Beguería, S., Vicente-Serrano, S. M., Reig, F. & Latorre, B. Standardized precipitation evapotranspiration index (SPEI) revisited: parameter fitting, evapotranspiration models, tools, datasets and drought monitoring. Int. J. Climatol. 34, 3001–3023 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wright, M. N. & Ziegler, A. ranger: a fast implementation of random forests for high dimensional data in C++ and R. J. Stat. Softw. 77, 1–17 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Middleton, N., Thomas, D. & UNEP. World Atlas of Desertification (Arnold, 1997).Staver, A. C., Archibald, S. & Levin, S. A. The global extent and determinants of Savanna and forest as alternative biome states. Science 334, 230–232 (2011).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
ESRI Data & Maps. World Continents Version 10.3. (2015).Uribe, M. R. et al. Net loss of biomass predicted for tropical biomes in a changing climate. Dryad https://doi.org/10.7280/D1D124 (2023). More

Plant growth model without environmental forcingThe model without environmental forcing closely follows the original description of the Thornley transport resistance (TTR) model29. A summary of the model parameters is provided in Supplementary Table 2. The shoot and root mass pools (MS and MR, in kg structural dry matter) change as a function of growth and loss (equations (1) and (2)). The litter (kL) and maintenance respiration (r) loss rates (in kg kg−1 d−1) are treated as constants. In the original model description29 r = 0. The parameter KM (units kg) describes how loss varies with mass (MS or MR). Growth (Gs and Gr, in kg d−1) varies as a function of the carbon and nitrogen concentrations (equations (3) and (4)). CS, CR, NS and NR are the amounts (kg) of carbon and nitrogen in the roots and shoots. These assumptions yield the following equations for shoot and root dry matter,$${mathrm{MS}}[t+1]={mathrm{MS}}[t]+{G}_{{mathrm{S}}}[t]-frac{({k}_{{mathrm{L}}}+r){mathrm{MS}}[t]}{1+frac{{K}_{{{M}}}}{{mathrm{MS}}[t]}},$$
(1)
$${mathrm{MR}}[t+1]={mathrm{MR}}[t]+{G}_{{mathrm{R}}}[t]-frac{({k}_{{mathrm{L}}}+r){mathrm{MR}}[t]}{1+frac{{K}_{{{M}}}}{{mathrm{MR}}[t]}},$$
(2)
where GS and GR are$${G}_{{mathrm{S}}}=gfrac{{mathrm{CS}}times {mathrm{NS}}}{{mathrm{MS}}},$$
(3)
$${G}_{{mathrm{R}}}=gfrac{{mathrm{CR}}times {mathrm{NR}}}{{mathrm{MR}}},$$
(4)
and g is the growth coefficient (in kg kg−1 d−1).Carbon uptake UC is determined by the net photosynthetic rate (a, in kg kg−1 d−1) and the shoot mass (equation (5)). Similarly, nitrogen uptake (UN) is determined by the nitrogen uptake rate (b, in kg kg−1 d−1) and the root mass. The parameter KA (units kg) forces both photosynthesis and nitrogen uptake to be asymptotic with mass. The second terms in the denominators of equations (5) and (6) model product inhibitions of carbon and nitrogen uptake, respectively; that is, the parameters JC and JN (in kg kg−1) mimic the inhibition of source activity when substrate concentrations are high,$${U}_{{mathrm{C}}}=frac{a{mathrm{MS}}}{left(1+frac{{mathrm{MS}}}{{K}_{{mathrm{A}}}}right)left(1+frac{{mathrm{CS}}}{{mathrm{MS}}times {J}_{{mathrm{C}}}}right)},$$
(5)
$${U}_{{mathrm{N}}}=frac{b{mathrm{MR}}}{left(1+frac{{mathrm{MR}}}{{K}_{{mathrm{A}}}}right)left(1+frac{{mathrm{NR}}}{{mathrm{MR}}times {J}_{{mathrm{N}}}}right)}.$$
(6)
The substrate transport fluxes of C and N (τC and τN, in kg d−1) between roots and shoots are determined by the concentration gradients between root and shoot and by the resistances. In the original model description29, these resistances are defined flexibly, but we simplify and assume that they scale linearly with plant mass,$${tau }_{{mathrm{C}}}=frac{{mathrm{MS}}times {mathrm{MR}}}{{mathrm{MS}}+{mathrm{MR}}}left(frac{{mathrm{CS}}}{{mathrm{MS}}}-frac{{mathrm{CR}}}{{mathrm{MR}}}right)$$
(7)
$${tau }_{{mathrm{N}}}=frac{{mathrm{MS}}times {mathrm{MR}}}{{mathrm{MS}}+{mathrm{MR}}}left(frac{{mathrm{NR}}}{{mathrm{MR}}}-frac{{mathrm{NS}}}{{mathrm{MS}}}right)$$
(8)
The changes in mass of carbon and nitrogen in the roots and shoots are then$${mathrm{CS}}[t+1]={mathrm{CS}}[t]+{U}_{{mathrm{C}}}[t]-{f}_{{mathrm{C}}}{G}_{{mathrm{s}}}[t]-{tau }_{{mathrm{C}}}[t]$$
(9)
$${mathrm{CR}}[t+1]={mathrm{CR}}[t]+{tau }_{{mathrm{C}}}[t]-{f}_{{mathrm{C}}}{G}_{{mathrm{r}}}[t]$$
(10)
$${mathrm{NS}}[t+1]={mathrm{NS}}[t]+{tau }_{{mathrm{N}}}[t]-{f}_{{mathrm{N}}}{G}_{{mathrm{s}}}[t]$$
(11)
$${mathrm{NR}}[t+1]={mathrm{NR}}[t]+{U}_{{mathrm{N}}}[t]-{f}_{{mathrm{N}}}{G}_{{mathrm{r}}}[t]-{tau }_{{mathrm{N}}}[t]$$
(12)
where fC and fN (in kg kg−1) are the fractions of structural carbon and nitrogen in dry matter.Adding environmental forcing to the plant growth modelIn this section, we describe how the net photosynthetic rate (a), the nitrogen uptake rate (b), the growth rate (g) and the respiration rate (r) are influenced by environmental-forcing factors. These environmental-forcing effects are described in equations (13)–(17) and summarized graphically in Extended Data Fig. 1. All other model parameters are treated as constants. Previous work that implemented the TTR model as a species distribution model30 is used as a starting point for adding environmental forcing. As in this previous work30, we assume that parameters a, b and g are co-limited by environmental factors in a manner analogous to Liebig’s law of the minimum, which is a crude but pragmatic abstraction. The implementation here differs in some details.Unlike previous work30, we use the Farquhar model of photosynthesis47,48 to represent how solar radiation, atmospheric CO2 concentration and air temperature co-limit photosynthesis35. We assume that the Farquhar model parameters are universal and that all vegetation in our study uses the C3 photosynthetic pathway. The Farquhar model photosynthetic rates are rescaled to [0,amax] to yield afqr. The effects of soil moisture (Msoil) on photosynthesis are represented as an increasing step function ({{{{S}}}}(M_{mathrm{soil}},{beta }_{1},{beta }_{2})=max left{min left(frac{M_{mathrm{soil}}-{beta }_{1}}{{beta }_{2}-{beta }_{1}},1right),0right}). This allows us to redefine a as,$$a={a}_{{mathrm{fqr}}} {{{{S}}}}(M_{mathrm{soil}},{beta }_{1},{beta }_{2})$$
(13)
The processes influencing nitrogen availability are complex, and global data products on plant available nitrogen are uncertain. We therefore assume that nitrogen uptake will vary with soil temperature and soil moisture. That is, the nitrogen uptake rate b is assumed to have a maximum rate (bmax) that is co-limited by soil temperature Tsoil and soil moisture Msoil,$$b={b}_{{mathrm{max}}} {{{{S}}}}({T}_{soil},{beta }_{3},{beta }_{4}) {{{{Z}}}}(M_{mathrm{soil}},{beta }_{5},{beta }_{6},{beta }_{7},{beta }_{8}).$$
(14)
In equation (14), we have assumed that the nitrogen uptake rate is a simple increasing and saturating function of temperature. We have also assumed that the nitrogen uptake rate is a trapezoidal function of soil moisture with low uptake rates in dry soils, higher uptake rates at intermediate moisture levels and lower rates once soils are so moist as to be waterlogged. The trapezoidal function is ({{{{Z}}}}(M_{mathrm{soil}},{beta }_{5},{beta }_{6},{beta }_{7},{beta }_{8})=max left{min left(frac{M_{mathrm{soil}}-{{{{{beta }}}}}_{5}}{{{{{{beta }}}}}_{6}-{{{{{beta }}}}}_{5}},1,frac{{{{{{beta }}}}}_{8}-M_{mathrm{soil}}}{{beta }_{8}-{beta }_{7}}right),0right}).The previous sections describe how the assimilation of carbon and nitrogen by a plant are influenced by environmental factors. The TTR model describes how these assimilate concentrations influence growth (equations (3) and (4)). In our implementation, we additionally allow the growth rate to be co-limited by temperature (soil temperature, Tsoil) and soil moisture (Msoil),$$g={g}_{{mathrm{max}}} {{{{Z}}}}({T}_{{mathrm{soil}}},{beta }_{9},{beta }_{10},{beta }_{11},{beta }_{12}) {{{{S}}}}(M_{mathrm{soil}},{beta }_{13},{beta }_{14}).$$
(15)
We use Tsoil since we assume that growth is more closely linked to soil temperature, which varies slower than air temperature. The respiration rate (r, equations (1) and (2)) increases as a function of air temperature (Tair) to a maximum rmax,$$r={r}_{{mathrm{max}}}{{{{S}}}}({T}_{{mathrm{air}}},{beta }_{15},{beta }_{16}).$$
(16)
The parameter r is best interpreted as a maintenance respiration. Growth respiration is not explicitly considered; it is implicitly incorporated in the growth rate parameter (g, equation (15)), and any temperature dependence in growth respiration is therefore assumed to be accommodated by equation (15).Fire can reduce the structural shoot mass MS as follows,$${mathrm{MS}}[t+1]={mathrm{MS}}[t](1-{{{{S}}}}(F,{beta }_{17},{beta }_{18})).$$
(17)
where F is an indicator of fire severity at a point in time (for example, burnt area) and the function S(F, β17, β18) allows MS to decrease when the fire severity indicator F is high. If F = 0, this process plays no role. This fire impact equation was used in preliminary analyses, but the data on fire activity did not provide sufficient information to estimate β17 and β18; we therefore excluded this process from the final analyses.We further estimate two additional β parameters (βa and βb) so that each site can have unique maximum carbon and nitrogen uptake rates. Specifically, we redefine a as ({a}^{{prime} }={beta }_{a} a) and b as ({b}^{{prime} }={beta }_{b} b).Data sources and preparationTo describe vegetation activity, we use the GIMMS 3g v.1 NDVI data26,27 and the MODIS EVI28 data. The GIMMS data product has been derived from the AVHRR satellite programme and controls for atmospheric contamination, calibration loss, orbital drift and volcanic eruptions26,27. The data provide 24 NDVI raster grids for each year, starting in July 1981 and ending in December 2015. The spatial resolution is 1/12° (~9 × 9 km). The EVI data used are from the MODIS programme’s Terra satellite; it is a 1 km data product provided at a 16-day interval. We use data from the start of the record (February 2000) to December 2019. The MODIS data product (MOD13A2) uses a temporal compositing algorithm to produce an estimate every 16 days that filters out atmospheric contamination. The EVI is designed to reduce the effects of atmospheric, bare-ground and surface water on the vegetation index28.For environmental forcing, we use the ERA5-Land data31,32 (European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts Reanalysis v. 5; hereafter, ERA5). The ERA5 products are global reanalysis products based on hourly estimates of atmospheric variables and extend from present back to 1979. The data products are supplied at a variety of spatial and temporal resolutions. We used the monthly averages from 1981 to 2019 at a 0.1° spatial resolution (~11 km). The ERA5 data provide air temperature (2 m surface air temperature), soil temperature (0–7 cm soil depth), surface solar radiation and volumetric soil water (0–7 cm soil depth). Fire data were taken from the European Space Agency Fire Disturbance Climate Change Initiative’s AVHRR Long-Term Data Record Grid v.1.0 product49. This product provides gridded (0.25° resolution) data of monthly global (from 1982 to 2017) burned area derived from the AVHRR satellite programme. As mentioned, the fire data did not enrich our analysis, and the analyses we present here therefore exclude further consideration of the fire data.All data were resampled to the GIMMS grid. The mean pixel EVI was then calculated for each GIMMS cell for each time point in the MODIS EVI data. We used linear interpolation on the NDVI, EVI and ERA5 environmental-forcing data to estimate each variable on a weekly time step. This served to set the time step of the TTR difference equations to one week and to synchronize the different time series.Site selectionThe GIMMS grid cells define the spatial resolution of our sample points. GIMMS grid cells are large (1/12°, ~9 km), meaning that most grid cells contain multiple land-cover types. We focused on wilderness landscapes, and our aim was to find multiple grid cells for the major ecosystems of the world. We used the following classification of ecosystem types to guide the stratification of our grid-cell selection: tropical evergreen forest (RF), boreal forest (BF), temperate evergreen and temperate deciduous forest (TF), savannah (SA), shrubland (SH), grassland (GR), tundra (TU) and Mediterranean-type ecosystems (MT).We used the following criteria to select grid cells. (1) Selected grid cells should contain relatively homogeneous vegetation. Small-scale heterogeneity was allowed (for example, catenas, drainage lines, peatlands) as long as many of these elements are repeated in the scene (for example, rolling hills were accepted, but elevation gradients were rejected). (2) Sites should have no signs of transformative human activity (for example, tree harvesting, crop cultivation, paved surfaces). We used the Time Tool in Google Earth Pro, which provides annual satellite imagery of the Earth from 1984 onwards, to ensure that no such activity occurred during the observation period (note that the GIMMS record starts in July 1981; however, it is likely that evidence of transformative activity between July 1981 and 1984 would be visible in 1984). Grid cells with extensive livestock holding on non-improved pasture were included. In some cases, a small agricultural field or pasture was present, and such grid cells were used as long as the field or pasture was small and remained constant in size. (3) Grid cells should not include large water bodies, but small drainage lines or ponds were accepted as long as they did not violate the first criterion. (4) Grid cells should be independent (neighbouring grid cells were not selected) and cover the major ecosystems of the world. Using these criteria, we were able to include 100 sites in the study (Extended Data Figs. 2 and 3 and Supplementary Table 4).State-space modelWe used a Bayesian state-space approach. Conceptually, the analysis takes the form,$$M[t]=f(M[t-1],{boldsymbol{beta}},{boldsymbol{theta}}_{t-1},{epsilon }_{t-1})$$
(18)
$${mathrm{VI}}[t]=m M[t]+eta .$$
(19)
Here M[t] is the plant growth model’s prediction of biomass (M = MS + MR) at time t, and ϵt−1 is the process error associated with the state variables. In the model, each underlying state variable (MS, MR, CS, CR, NS and NR) has an associated process error term. The function f(M[t − 1], β, θt−1, ϵt−1) summarizes that the development of M is influenced by the state variables MS, MR, CS, CR, NS and NR, the environmental-forcing data θt−1 and the β parameters. The observation equation (equation (19)) uses the parameter m to link the VI (vegetation index, either NDVI or EVI) observations to the modelled state M. The parameter η is the observation error. Equation (19) assumes that there is a linear relationship between modelled biomass (M) and VI, which is a simplification of reality50,51,52. The observation error η is structured by our simplification of the data products quality scores (coded Q = 0, 1, 2, with 0 being good and 2 being poor; Supplementary Table 3) to allow the error to increase with each level of the quality score. Specifically, we define η = e0 + e1 × Q.The model was formulated using the R package LaplacesDemon53. All β parameters are given vague uniform priors. The parameter m is given a vague normal prior (truncated to be >0). The process error terms are modelled using normal distributions, and the variances of the error terms are given vague half-Cauchy priors. The ex parameters are given vague normal priors. The model also requires the parameterization of M[0], the initial vegetation biomass; M[0] is given a vague uniform prior. We used the twalk Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) algorithm as implemented in LaplacesDemon53 and its default control parameters to estimate the posterior distributions of the model parameters. We further fitted the model using DEoptim54,55, which is a robust genetic algorithm that is known to perform stably on high-dimensional and multi-modal problems56, to verify that the MCMC algorithm had not missed important regions of the parameter space. The models estimated with MCMC had significantly lower log root-mean-square error than models estimated with DEoptim (paired t-test NDVI analysis: t = –2.9806, degrees of freedom (d.f.) = 99, P = 0.00362; EVI analysis: t = –4.6229, d.f. = 99, P = 1.144 × 10–5), suggesting that the MCMC algorithm performed well compared with the genetic algorithm.Anomaly extraction and trend estimationWe use the ‘seasonal and trend decomposition using Loess’ (STL57) as implemented in the R58 base function stl. STL extracts the seasonal component s of a time series using Loess smoothing. What remains after seasonal extraction (the anomaly or remainder, r) is the sum of any long-term trend and stochastic variation. We estimate the trend in two ways. First, we estimate the trend by fitting a quadratic polynomial (r = a + bx + cx2) to the remainder (r is the remainder, x is time and a, b and c are regression coefficients). The use of polynomials allows the data to specify whether a trend exists, whether the trend is linear, cup or hat shaped and whether the overall trend is increasing or decreasing. As a second method, we estimate the trend by fitting a bent-cable regression to the remainder. Bent-cable regression is a type of piecewise linear regression for estimating the point of transition between two linear phases in a time series59,60. The model takes the form r = b0 + b1x + b2 q(x, τ, γ)60. Here r is the remainder, x is time, b0 is the initial intercept, b1 is the slope in phase 1, the slope in phase 2 is b2 − b1 and q is a function that defines the change point: (q(x,tau ,gamma )=frac{{(x-tau +gamma )}^{2}}{4gamma }I(tau -gamma < tau +gamma )+(x-tau )I(x > tau +gamma )); τ represents the location of the change point and γ the span of the bent cable that joins the two linear phases; I(A) is an indicator function that returns 1 if A is true and 0 if A is false. The bent-cable model allows the data to specify whether a trend exists and whether there has been a switch in the trend, thereby allowing the identification of whether the trend is linear, cup or hat shaped and whether the overall trend is increasing or decreasing. Both the polynomial and bent-cable models were estimated using LaplacesDemon’s53 Adaptive Metropolis MCMC algorithm and vague priors, although for the bent-cable model we constrained τ to be in the middle 70% of the time series and γ to be at most two years.The STL extraction of the seasonal components in the air temperature, soil temperature, soil moisture and solar radiation data (there is no stochasticity or seasonal trend in the CO2 data we used) allows us to simulate detrended time series d of these forcing variables as (d=bar{y}+s+{{{{N}}}}(mu ,sigma )) where N(μ, σ) is a normally distributed random variable with mean and standard deviation estimated from the remainder r (we verified that r was well described by the normal distribution), (bar{y}) is the mean of the data over the time series and s is the seasonal component extracted by STL. For CO2, the detrended time series is simply the average CO2 over the time series. More

Phalan, B. et al. Crop expansion and conservation priorities in tropical countries. PLoS ONE 8, e51759 (2013).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Poore, J. & Nemecek, T. Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers. Science 360, 987–992 (2018).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Springmann, M. et al. Options for keeping the food system within environmental limits. Nature 562, 519–525 (2018).Tilman, D., Balzer, C., Hill, J. & Befort, B. L. Global food demand and the sustainable intensification of agriculture. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108, 20260–20264 (2011).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Searchinger, T. D., Wirsenius, S., Beringer, T. & Dumas, P. Assessing the efficiency of changes in land use for mitigating climate change. Nature 564, 249–253 (2018).Edwards, D. P. et al. Conservation of tropical forests in the Anthropocene. Curr. Biol. 29, R1008–R1020 (2019).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Newbold, T. et al. Global patterns of terrestrial assemblage turnover within and among land uses. Ecography 39, 1151–1163 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Newbold, T. et al. Global effects of land use on local terrestrial biodiversity. Nature 520, 45–50 (2015).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Gibbs, H. K. et al. Tropical forests were the primary sources of new agricultural land in the 1980s and 1990s. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 107, 16732–16737 (2010).Hansen, M. C. et al. High-resolution global maps of 21st-century forest cover change. Science 342, 850–853 (2013).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Newbold, T. et al. A global model of the response of tropical and sub-tropical forest biodiversity to anthropogenic pressures. Proc. R. Soc. B 281, 20141371 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Clough, Y. et al. Combining high biodiversity with high yields in tropical agroforests. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108, 8311–8316 (2011).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Giam, X. Global biodiversity loss from tropical deforestation. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, 5775–5777 (2017).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
van der Werf, G. R. et al. CO2 emissions from forest loss. Nat. Geosci. 2, 737–738 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Harvey, C. A. et al. Climate‐smart landscapes: opportunities and challenges for integrating adaptation and mitigation in tropical agriculture. Conserv. Lett. 7, 77–90 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Harris, N. L. et al. Baseline map of carbon emissions from deforestation in tropical regions. Science 336, 1573–1576 (2012).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Song, X.-P. et al. Global land change from 1982 to 2016. Nature 560, 639–643 (2018).Quezada, J. C., Etter, A., Ghazoul, J., Buttler, A. & Guillaume, T. Carbon neutral expansion of oil palm plantations in the Neotropics. Sci. Adv. 5, eaaw4418 (2019).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Oil Palm and Biodiversity: a Situation Analysis by the IUCN Oil Palm Task Force (International Union for Conservation of Nature, 2018). https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.CH.2018.11.enMeijaard, E. & Sheil, D. The moral minefield of ethical oil palm and sustainable development. Front. For. Glob. Change 2, 22 (2019).The Future of Food and Agriculture – Alternative Pathways to 2050 (FAO, 2018).Henders, S., Persson, U. M. & Kastner, T. Trading forests: land-use change and carbon emissions embodied in production and exports of forest-risk commodities. Environ. Res. Lett. 10, 125012 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Donofrio, S., Rothrock, P. & Leonard, J. Supply Change: Tracking Corporate Commitments to Deforestation-Free Supply Chains (Forest Trends, 2017).Terrenoire, E., Hauglustaine, D. A., Gasser, T. & Penanhoat, O. The contribution of carbon dioxide emissions from the aviation sector to future climate change. Environ. Res. Lett. 14, 084019 (2019).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Parsons, S., Raikova, S. & Chuck, C. J. The viability and desirability of replacing palm oil. Nat. Sustain. 3, 412–418 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Taheripour, F., Hertel, T. W. & Ramankutty, N. Market-mediated responses confound policies to limit deforestation from oil palm expansion in Malaysia and Indonesia. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 19193–19199 (2019).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Laurance, W. F. et al. Improving the performance of the roundtable on sustainable palm oil for nature conservation. Conserv. Biol. 24, 377–381 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Meijaard, E., Abrams, J. F., Juffe-Bignoli, D., Voigt, M. & Sheil, D. Coconut oil, conservation and the conscientious consumer. Curr. Biol. 30, R757–R758 (2020).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Driving Change With Sustainable Palm Oil (Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil, accessed August 2022). https://rspo.org/aboutGarrett, R. D., Carlson, K. M., Rueda, X. & Noojipady, P. Assessing the potential additionality of certification by the round table on responsible soybeans and the roundtable on sustainable palm oil. Environ. Res. Lett. 11, 045003 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Mittermeier, R. A., Myers, N., Mittermeier, C. G. & Robles, G. Hotspots: Earth’s Biologically Richest and Most Endangered Terrestrial Ecoregions (Conservation International, 1999).Gaveau, D. L. et al. Rapid conversions and avoided deforestation: examining four decades of industrial plantation expansion in Borneo. Sci. Rep. 6, 32017 (2016).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Luke, S. H. et al. Riparian buffers in tropical agriculture: scientific support, effectiveness and directions for policy. J. Appl. Ecol. 56, 85–92 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Mitchell, S. L. et al. Riparian reserves help protect forest bird communities in oil palm dominated landscapes. J. Appl. Ecol. 55, 2744–2755 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Scriven, S. A. et al. Testing the benefits of conservation set-asides for improved habitat connectivity in tropical agricultural landscapes. J. Appl. Ecol. 56, 2274–2285 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Deere, N. J. et al. Riparian buffers can help mitigate biodiversity declines in oil palm agriculture. Front. Ecol. Environ. 20, 459–466 (2021).Woodham, C. R. et al. Effects of replanting and retention of mature oil palm riparian buffers on ecosystem functioning in oil palm plantations. Front. Glob. Change 2, 29 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Carlson, K. M. et al. Influence of watershed‐climate interactions on stream temperature, sediment yield, and metabolism along a land use intensity gradient in Indonesian Borneo. J. Geophys. Res. Biogeosci. 119, 1110–1128 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Carlson, K. M. et al. Effect of oil palm sustainability certification on deforestation and fire in Indonesia. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115, 121–126 (2018).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Fleiss, S. et al. Conservation set-asides improve carbon storage and support associated plant diversity in certified sustainable oil palm plantations. Biol. Conserv. 248, 108631 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wunder, S., Angelsen, A. & Belcher, B. Forests, livelihoods, and conservation: broadening the empirical base. World Dev. 64, S1–S11 (2014).Struebig, M. J. et al. Quantifying the biodiversity value of repeatedly logged rainforests: gradient and comparative approaches from Borneo. Adv. Ecol. Res. 48, 183–224 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Shevade, V. S. & Loboda, T. V. Oil palm plantations in Peninsular Malaysia: determinants and constraints on expansion. PLoS ONE 14, e0210628 (2019).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Pirker, J., Mosnier, A., Kraxner, F., Havlík, P. & Obersteiner, M. What are the limits to oil palm expansion? Glob. Environ. Change 40, 73–81 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Launching the RSPO Jurisdictional Approach (JA) Piloting Framework (Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil, accessed August 2022).Abram, N. K. et al. Synergies for improving oil palm production and forest conservation in floodplain landscapes. PLoS ONE 9, e95388 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Othman, N. et al. Shift of paradigm needed towards improving human–elephant coexistence in monoculture landscapes in Sabah. Int. Zoo Yearb. 53, 161–173 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Horton, A. J. et al. Can riparian forest buffers increase yields from oil palm plantations? Earths Future 6, 1082–1096 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ewers, R. M. et al. A large-scale forest fragmentation experiment: the Stability of Altered Forest Ecosystems Project. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 366, 3292–3302 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pfeifer, M. et al. Creation of forest edges has a global impact on forest vertebrates. Nature 551, 187–191 (2017).Ewers, R. M., Thorpe, S. & Didham, R. K. Synergistic interactions between edge and area effects in a heavily fragmented landscape. Ecology 88, 96–106 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
Deere, N. J. et al. High carbon stock forests provide co-benefits for tropical biodiversity. J. Appl. Ecol. 55, 997–1008 (2018).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Hemprich-Bennett, D. R. et al. Altered structure of bat–prey interaction networks in logged tropical forests revealed by metabarcoding. Mol. Ecol. 30, 5844–5857 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Williamson, J. et al. Riparian buffers act as microclimatic refugia in oil palm landscapes. J. Appl. Ecol. 58, 431–442 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Slade, E. M., Mann, D. J. & Lewis, O. T. Biodiversity and ecosystem function of tropical forest dung beetles under contrasting logging regimes. Biol. Conserv. 144, 166–174 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gray, R. E. J. et al. Movement of forest-dependent dung beetles through riparian buffers in Bornean oil palm plantations. J. Appl. Ecol. 59, 238–250 (2022).Woodman, S. M. et al. esdm: a tool for creating and exploring ensembles of predictions from species distribution and abundance models. Methods Ecol. Evol. 10, 1923–1933 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Liu, C., Berry, P. M., Dawson, T. P. & Pearson, R. G. Selecting thresholds of occurrence in the prediction of species distributions. Ecography 28, 385–393 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
Piccini, I. et al. Greenhouse gas emissions from dung pats vary with dung beetle species and with assemblage composition. PloS ONE 12, e0178077 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Raine, E. H. & Slade, E. M. Dung beetle–mammal associations: methods, research trends and future directions. Proc. R. Soc. B 286, 20182002 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Nichols, E., Gardner, T., Peres, C., Spector, S. & Network, S. R. Co‐declining mammals and dung beetles: an impending ecological cascade. Oikos 118, 481–487 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Asner, G. P. et al. Mapped aboveground carbon stocks to advance forest conservation and recovery in Malaysian Borneo. Biol. Conserv. 217, 289–310 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Jucker, T. et al. Estimating aboveground carbon density and its uncertainty in Borneo’s structurally complex tropical forests using airborne laser scanning. Biogeosciences 15, 3811–3830 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Philipson, C. D. et al. Active restoration accelerates the carbon recovery of human-modified tropical forests. Science 369, 838–841 (2020).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Nunes, M. H. et al. Recovery of logged forest fragments in a human-modified tropical landscape during the 2015–16 El Niño. Nat. Commun. 12, 1526 (2021).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Woittiez, L. S., van Wijk, M. T., Slingerland, M., van Noordwijk, M. & Giller, K. E. Yield gaps in oil palm: a quantitative review of contributing factors. Eur. J. Agron. 83, 57–77 (2017).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