Skip to main content
PLOS Biology logoLink to PLOS Biology
. 2025 Jul 22;23(7):e3003285. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3003285

Arthropod biodiversity loss from nitrogen deposition is buffered by natural and semi-natural habitats

Shunxiang Fan 1, Tim Newbold 2, Jan C Axmacher 3, Charlotte L Outhwaite 2,4, Yi Zou 5, Zhenrong Yu 1, Yunhui Liu 1,*
Editor: Tien Ming Lee6
PMCID: PMC12282910  PMID: 40694575

Abstract

Nitrogen (N) deposition is known to strongly modify biogeochemical cycles and trophic interactions, in turn altering ecosystem functioning and plant diversity around the globe. However, our understanding of N deposition effects on arthropod diversity remains limited. Here, we investigate how N deposition impacts the diversity of arthropods by combining biodiversity data from the PREDICTS database with data on global N deposition and land cover using mixed-effects models. We then explore the potential for semi-natural and natural habitats (‘SNH’) to buffer against potential N deposition-linked biodiversity losses. N deposition has a negative effect on arthropod biodiversity. Both, species richness and abundance are significantly reduced in areas of high levels of N deposition when compared to areas of low N deposition, with responses varying across different land-use types. The strongest negative effects of N deposition on arthropod diversity were observed in locations where the local land use entails the least anthropogenic modification. At the same time, with the exception of cropland-dominated landscapes, increases in the amount of SNH in the surrounding landscape reduced arthropod biodiversity losses associated with N deposition. We conclude that SNH can play an important role in mitigating the negative effects of N deposition on arthropod diversity, with the conservation and creation of these habitats promoting arthropod diversity even under high levels of N deposition.


Nitrogen deposition reduces arthropod species richness and abundance, especially in less-modified habitats, highlighting its threat to biodiversity. This study shows that natural and semi-natural habitats can buffer against these losses, emphasizing their conservation value in mitigating nitrogen deposition’s negative effects on arthropod diversity.

Introduction

Nitrogen (N) is an essential nutrient for plant growth and productivity, and its availability strongly affects ecosystem functioning by influencing interspecific competition and trophic relationships [13]. N inputs can affect plant primary productivity, species composition, vegetation structure, litter load, duff characteristics, fire regimes, and soil properties [47], which can further reshape biotic communities, impacting microfauna, flora, and fauna globally. Naturally, atmospheric N deposition (Ndep) [8] and microbial N fixation [1] form key N sources in terrestrial ecosystems. Human activities, notably the burning of fossil fuels and chemical fertilizer applications, have at least doubled total average N deposition (Human-induced N input) rates in less than a century [9]. Although current N deposition has been proposed as a major threat to global terrestrial biodiversity [1012] and has also been identified as one of the five major drivers hindering the achievement of global biodiversity conservation targets [13], its global-scale effects have remained underexplored [14], especially when compared to the increasingly well-recognized impacts land use and climate change have on biodiversity [1519]. Global N deposition levels continue to increase, despite ongoing efforts to reduce them [2022], implying that any associated potential threats to biodiversity are likely to increase. A better understanding of the nature and strength of N deposition impacts on the diversity especially of arthropods, the world’s most species-rich taxa, are therefore critical to inform effective global biodiversity conservation planning.

Previous studies on the impacts of N deposition on biodiversity have mostly focused on plant species and local scales. Relying strongly on data from field N deposition experiments, they show that high N deposition rates trigger losses in plant diversity and changes in vegetation composition [2328]. While research into responses of animal assemblages to N deposition have remained limited [2931], it might be expected that plant community responses translate up to higher trophic levels.

N deposition rates are furthermore impacted by land use and landscape patterns. For example, the conversion of agricultural land to semi-natural forest or grassland ecosystems often reduces regional N deposition rates on remaining agricultural land due to changing ground surface features (surface roughness and soil moisture levels), which are important for dry and wet N deposition [32]. Nonetheless, large-scale responses of animal biodiversity to N deposition under different land use types remain poorly understood. Understanding these responses is further complicated by temporal variations in the relative proportions of reduced and oxidized N deposition [33] which can result in significant variations in the ecological effects linked to overall N depositions [34]. A better understanding of specific ecological impacts of these two forms of N deposition can support a more targeted and effective biodiversity conservation.

Arthropods represent the most species-rich taxa of terrestrial animals and play critical roles in ecosystem functions, ranging from pollination, decomposition and nutrient cycling, pest control, soil aeration, and fertility to seed dispersal [35]. A growing body of literature indicates a continued decline in their diversity [5,14,18,36,37] with cascading effects on ecosystems, and ultimately, human well-being [35]. To date, the impact of N addition on arthropods has only been studied at highly localized scales. In this context, elevated N levels have been indicated to heighten risks of pest outbreaks through enhanced foliar palatability [38], while negatively impacting pollinating insects by altering the chemical makeup of nectar and pollen [39,40], indirectly resulting in a decline in pollination services and crop yields [41]. On a landscape scale, atmospheric N deposition may increase particularly in cropland (CR)-dominated landscapes, with crop management linked to key additional sources of N deposition [42] that will affect biodiversity also in the surrounding areas [43]. Understanding N deposition impacts on arthropod communities on a global scale can in this context provide critical new insights for safeguarding associated ecosystem services particularly within agricultural landscapes.

In agricultural landscapes, semi-natural and natural habitats (hereafter SNH) are important for the maintenance of biodiversity and associated ecosystem services [4447]. Their presence is already known to mitigate adverse effects of increasing temperature [18,46] and intensive agricultural production [48,49] on arthropod assemblages. SNH are believed to provide general refuge spaces for species under pressure from intensive cultivation practices, including from high N fertilizer applications on adjacent agricultural land. Therefore, SNH are expected to buffer detrimental effects of N deposition on agro-biodiversity. However, the expansion of agricultural land in response to increases in the human population and changing consumption patterns has led to an ongoing loss of SNH and increases in CR areas that also result in increased local N deposition rates [50]. Such changes may disproportionately contribute to a sustained decline in species diversity [50,51], thereby posing a threat to plant and animal taxa, and challenging our ability to reach global biodiversity conservation goals [52]. It is therefore essential to explore if and how SNHs buffer the negative effects of N deposition (from now on called “buffer effect”).

To explore this question, we combined data on global N deposition and the composition of arthropod assemblages across different land-use types to assess the relationship between N deposition and biodiversity (measured as species richness, with total abundance of arthropod assemblages also considered). Specifically, we extracted arthropod diversity data for 6,416 sites (including site-level land use information) from the PREDICTS database (Fig 1). Using the coordinates of each site, we then extracted data on N deposition, proportion of SNH and CR, and other covariates (temperature, precipitation, soil pH, N fertilizer). Based on this information, we conducted analyses using mixed-effects models to answer two core sets of questions: (1) How does N deposition impact arthropod species richness and total abundance across different land-use types? In this context, does the deposition of reduced N (ammonia) exert a greater influence on arthropods than that of oxidized N (e.g., nitrous oxide)? (2) Can the presence and proportion of SNH in the surrounding landscape buffer detrimental effects of N deposition on arthropod diversity, particularly within CR sites? We hypothesize that (1) With the increase in N deposition, arthropod diversity generally declines irrespective of land-use type. When comparing different forms of N deposition, reduced N deposition exhibits more significant adverse effects on biodiversity relative to oxidized N deposition, primarily due to its pronounced ability to induce soil acidification. (2) SNH can buffer against the negative effect N deposition exerts on arthropod diversity.

Fig 1. The distribution of sites from the PREDICTS database and the level of total N deposition.

Fig 1

The size of the point represents the number of sites per study (Nsites). The change from blue to orange indicates the increase in the total amount of atmospheric N deposition. N deposition values were loge-transformed, with N deposition ranging from 0.8 mg N m−2 yr−1 to 7960.0 mg N m−2 yr−1. The outline map is based on Ncan be foubnatural Earth Data (http://www.naturalearthdata.com/about/terms-of-use/), which is published under a CC-BY 4.0 license. The data underlying this figure can be found in https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.29109170.

Methods

Arthropod biodiversity and land use data

Data on the composition of arthropod assemblages across different land-use types were extracted from the PREDICTS database [53,54]. This global terrestrial biodiversity database contains spatial comparisons of local biodiversity from sites of differing land use and/or land-use intensity. The complete dataset includes 480 data sources (published articles, or unpublished datasets, but with published methodology) with ~3.2 million species records, covering all major land regions of the world except Antarctica. The database covers the years 1984–2013, with most data concentrated after 2000 [55]. It has a hierarchical structure, with each data source containing one or more ‘studies’, where data were collected using the same method (666 studies in total), each study containing one or more spatial ‘blocks’, representing distinct spatial clusters of sites, and each block containing a number of specific sampling ‘sites’. Each site has records of species abundance or occurrence, from which it is possible to derive community composition, and each study site is also assigned a standardized land-use type (see below for details) [53,55,56]. Almost all sampled sites within PREDICTS are accompanied by geographical coordinates giving their precise location.

In our study, we selected data for Arthropod species in the PREDICTS database, including six taxonomic classes: Arachnida, Chilopoda, Diplopoda, Entognatha, Insecta, and Malacostraca, which together encompassed 1,121,105 records. We calculated two site-level measures to use as response variables in our models: total abundance (total number of individuals across all species sampled at a site) and species richness (the total number of species—as defined by the original study authors—sampled at a site). Abundance metrics are highly dependent on sampling effort and require standardization to enable meaningful comparisons. In contrast, the relationship between species richness and sampling effort is non-linear and prone to a saturation effect. If the sampling effort varied across sites within a study, sampling effort was scaled so that the highest value of sampling effort was 1 and all others were relative to that. The abundance measurements were then divided by this relative sampling effort. We therefore assume that there is a linear relationship between recorded abundance and sampling effort (following Newbold and colleagues [57]—it should nonetheless be noted that, for very large samples, this pattern is likely asymptotic once approaching a state where all specimens occurring in a locality have been sampled). Sites with the same coordinates and land-use conditions were merged to combine sub-samples from the same location (e.g., multiple pitfall traps in an array of traps). As sample sizes are incomplete and vary, we also calculated the Chao-1 estimator [58]. While being aware of the limitations of species estimators in comparing incompletely sampled communities, we employed the Chao-1 estimator as a surrogate to verify the consistency of our results with the observed species richness. The patterns of the results were broadly similar to those presented in the main text (the results of the models based on Chao-estimated richness are presented in S3 Text).

The PREDICTS database assigns sites to specific land-use classes based on information provided in the source publication or by enquiry to the original study authors. Land uses are divided into six categories: (1) Primary vegetation (PV), comprising forest or non-forested natural habitat that is not known to have been destroyed in the past; (2) Secondary vegetation (SV), which represents natural habitats that have been destroyed by human activities or extreme natural events in the past, but where vegetation is being restored or naturally recovering; (3) CR, representing land used to grow herbaceous crops; (4) Plantation forest (PF), which represents areas used to grow timber or crop trees or shrubs for commercial or subsistence use; (5) Pasture (PA), comprising land known to be regularly or permanently grazed by livestock, and (6) Urban (UR), comprising areas covered with human habitation, buildings, or areas managed for recreation (e.g., parks). To study the effect of SNH on arthropod diversity responses to N deposition in the surrounding area, we focus on areas that are not dominated by impervious surfaces, thus excluding UR areas. We also excluded records with undetermined land use, and records missing either geographic coordinates or abundance data. The final dataset included total abundance and species richness data of 6,416 sampled sites, representing 270 studies.

Nitrogen deposition datasets

We selected and used outputs of the following 11 global deposition models from the second-phase mission of the Hemispheric Transport of Air Pollution (HTAP II) project [59,60] to obtain estimates of N deposition, following the criteria of Tan and colleagues [60]: CAM-Chem, C-IFS_v2, SPRINTARS, GOCARTv5, OsloCTM3v.2, GEOSCHEMAJOINT, GEOS5, EMEP_rv48, GEM-MACH, CHASER_re1, and CHASER_t106 re1 (Details in Tan and colleagues [60]; Schwede and colleagues [34]). These 11 models were selected as they satisfied the following two criteria suggested by Tan and colleagues [60]: (1) The modeled range of N deposition amounts for the 11 models was limited to ±20% of the maximum and minimum measured N emission values, respectively (emission inventory grids are provided for seven different sectors, e.g., energy, industry); (2) Compared with the mean of all modeling deposition values, the modeled values of the these 11 models did not exceed ±1.5 times the interquartile range of the multi-model average values (see further details in Tan and colleagues [60]). These outputs of N deposition were interpolated into a 1° × 1° grid (resolution of ~111 km at the equator) by taking the arithmetic mean of values from these 11 models (Fig 1). The dataset shows strong consistency with N deposition data from other datasets and observation networks [34,42,60]. The dataset provides two types of N deposition data: oxidized nitrogen forms (NOy, primarily generated from high-temperature processes including industrial processes and fossil-fuel combustion), and reduced nitrogen forms (NHx, primarily originating from agricultural fertilizers and animal manure). The total N deposition was obtained by summing the estimates of oxidized N deposition and of reduced N deposition. Values of total oxidized and reduced N deposition for each sampling site were then extracted based on geographic coordinates. In addition to total N deposition, we compared the responses of arthropod diversity to the two main types of N deposition, separately (results are presented in S2 Fig, S5S8 Tables). Although data with a higher spatial resolution would be helpful for more precise results when relating field-sampled arthropod diversity to N deposition, global estimates of N deposition are not currently available at a spatial resolution finer than 1°. We checked the consistency of our results by running models for Europe, where 0.1° × 0.1° estimates of N deposition are available, and found that the results using the fine-resolution N deposition data were consistent with those using the coarse-resolution data (see S2 Text for more details).

Other variables potentially associated with N deposition impacts

In order to enhance the model’s explanatory ability, we also considered additional factors (climate ~temperature and precipitation, soil pH, N fertilizer application) that may potentially influence the interaction between land use and N deposition in our study [26,42,6163]. For climate data, we extracted estimates of mean annual temperature (MAT) and mean annual precipitation (MAP) for 2010 from CRU TS version 4.07 [64] at 0.5° spatial resolution. To maintain consistency with the year of N deposition data, the year 2010 was also chosen for MAT and MAP data. The CRU TS dataset is a global meteorological dataset for all land regions except Antarctica, derived from interpolated monthly climate anomalies based on extensive networks of weather-station observations. It covers the period from 1901 to the present day, with an annual timestep. To obtain data on N fertilizer application, we utilized the Global Fertilizer and Manure database, Version 1, which combines national levels data of crop fertilizer use obtained from the International Fertilizer Industry Association (IFA) with global harvested areas of 175 crops at a resolution of 0.5 degrees [65]. Notably, N deposition data are closely linked to, and partially derived from, agricultural N fertilizer application [42,66]. Therefore, the spatial patterns of N deposition and fertilizer application are highly correlated [67] and can also be used as general intensity indicators of anthropogenic influence on ecosystems. We compared N fertilizer data with N deposition data in model selection to assess their significant effects on arthropod diversity in this study. Soil pH data was extracted from SoilGrids250m version 2.0 [68]. It models the spatial distribution of global soil properties using global soil profile information and covariate data by machine learning to generate a collection of world soil attribute maps with a resolution of 250 m. The four variables (MAT, MAP, soil pH, and N fertilizer) were extracted based on the geographic coordinates of each sample site.

Proportion of SNH and cropland in the surrounding landscape

We used global fine-scale estimates of land use for 2005 [69] to extract the proportion of SNH surrounding each sampling site. We selected the 2005 data as it was closest to the median sampling year of the PREDICTS sites included in our analysis, and the land-use categories are also consistent with those recorded in the PREDICTS database. A similar approach has been used in other PREDICTS-related studies [18,70]. For the land-use dataset, we divided the terrestrial area into five types, corresponding with the classification used in PREDICTS—PV, SV, PA, CR and UR. The dataset was created by statistically downscaling mapped coarse-scale land-use data (the 0.5° Land-use Harmonization data [71]) based on their relationships with climate, topography, soil, land cover, population density, and accessibility. The downscaled dataset provides global mapped estimates of land use at a 30-arc-min spatial resolution (approximately 1 km × 1 km at the equator) [69]. PV and SV were grouped together as SNH. To estimate the proportion of SNH in the landscape surrounding each study site, we created a 5-km circular buffer around the midpoint of each sampling location and calculated the mean percentage of PV and SV within the buffer. The proportion of CR was also extracted using the same method and dataset.

Statistical analysis

We used mixed-effects models to explore the impact of N deposition on arthropod total abundance and species richness. N deposition (total) was treated as a fixed effects, either combined or separated by oxidized and reduced forms. Continuous variables, including N deposition, MAT, MAP, soil pH, N fertilizer application, percentage of SNH, and percentage of CR in the surrounding landscape were standardized using z-transformation to convert them into standardized, dimensionless values, and they were also included as part of fixed effects. Study identity, and spatial block nested within study, were included as random effects to account for the differences in sampling methods used among studies, and the spatial distribution of sites within studies, respectively [17]. The total abundance data contained many non-integer values, and thus we used a natural logarithm transformation prior to fitting the data into a linear mixed-effects model with normally distributed errors. For species richness, generalized linear mixed-effects models with Poisson-distributed errors were used. Additionally, we also incorporated a random intercept of site identity in species richness model to control for overdispersion [72]. For more detailed information on the models’ output, refer to S3S4 Tables. To illustrate the relative magnitudes of arthropod diversity responses associated with increasing N deposition, we calculated the model-estimated percentage difference in both total abundance and species richness across the range of N deposition values at the sites included in the analyses. We set the 2.5th percentile value of total N depositions as the reference value, i.e., as the value representing the low N deposition in this study, and sampled 10,000 estimates based on the model variance–covariance matrix to predict differences in abundance and richness compared to this reference. Median values and 95% confidence intervals thus represent the percentage difference compared to this baseline condition. Since results were similar for the separate models of oxidized and reduced N deposition (see S5S8 Tables), we only used the total N deposition for subsequent analyses investigating its interactive effect with land use, proportion of SNH and proportion of CR (hereafter, N deposition therefore refers to total N deposition).

To address our hypotheses, we built the minimum adequate mixed-effect model associated with N deposition for species richness and total abundance, respectively, by backward stepwise selection. Initially, we tested the interaction terms based on the most complex fixed-effects structure model. Subsequently, we removed the interactive effects before examining the main effects. If the interaction effects are significant, the main effects will be retained regardless of their importance (S1 Text). Specifically, we included N deposition as a fixed effect to explore its effect on arthropod species richness and total abundance. N fertilizer was also included as a fixed effect in model selection to test whether it significantly influences arthropod diversity. Besides, other factors and their interaction with N deposition, including MAT, MAP, and soil pH, which have been reported to potentially influence arthropod diversity as well [42,6163], were included as covariables in the model. Additionally, to further investigate variations in the impact of N deposition across different land-use types (In our study, land use was a 5-levels categorical variable ~PV, SV, CR, PF, and PA), we incorporated N deposition and its interaction with each land-use type into our analysis. Further, N deposition and percentage of SNH, as well as the proportion of CR were also included as interacting fixed effects in the model, respectively, to investigate potential interactions between N deposition and SNH/CR within a 5-km radius around each site on arthropod species richness and total abundance. Finally, we also added a three-way interaction between N deposition, the proportion of SNH, and land use, to further explore whether the buffering effect of the proportion of SNH varied across land use. While it would be valuable to investigate how the buffering effects of SNH are influenced by climatic or soil factors, incorporating such variables would introduce higher-order interactions that could render the model excessively complex and challenging to interpret. Given that this was not the primary focus of our study, we did not to include these interactions in the model. Similarly, due to the potential for increased complexity, we did not incorporate different N deposition models as a factor. Model formulae and model selection can be found in S1 Text. We used variance inflation factors (VIFs) to assess collinearity among predictor variables. VIFs were all lower than 10, indicating low collinearity between predictors [73] (S12 and S13 Tables).

We checked all the fitted models to assess the extent to which they met the model assumptions. All models were validated by checking their residual distribution following suggestions from Zuur and colleagues [73], and we used Moran’s I to test for study-level spatial autocorrelation in the residuals (S4 and S5 Figs). All statistical analyses were conducted in R 4.03 [74], with the models run using the lme4 package version 1.1-30 [75], the extraction of continuous raster data using the raster package version 3.5-15 [76], and the predictsFunctions package version 1.0 for final model selection and PREDICTS data processing [77].

Data sources

Datasets used in our study: The PREDICTS data can be downloaded at https://Data.nhm.ac.uk/dataset/The-2016-release-of-The-PREDICTS-database. The Nitrogen deposition data can be downloaded at https://thredds.met.no/thredds/catalog/data/EMEP/Articles_data/Schwede_etal_Ndep_2018/catalog.html. The land-use dataset used in our study to extract the proportion of SNH and CR in surrounding landscape can be downloaded at https://doi.org/10.4225/08/56DCD9249B224. The climate data (MAT and MAP) were extracted from CRU TS version 4.07 at https://crudata.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/hrg/index.htm. The nitrogen fertilizer application data (Global Fertilizer and Manure, Version 1) can be downloaded at https://sedac.ciesin.columbia.edu/data/set/ferman-v1-nitrogen-fertilizer-application/data-download. The soil pH (SoilGrids250m version 2.0) data can be downloaded at https://soilgrids.org/.

Results

Land use-specific effects of N deposition on arthropod diversity

Across all land uses, arthropod biodiversity showed a significant decline with increasing N deposition both in terms of species richness and total abundance (Fig 2). N deposition exhibited a significant negative effect on arthropod species richness in PV (p = 0.009; S3 Table). Specifically, species richness at high-N deposition sites was 39% lower than at low-N deposition sites within PV (Fig 2A). Species richness was about 24% lower in CR sites experiencing high total atmospheric N deposition (2326.3 mg N m−2 yr−1, representing the 97.5th percentile value of total N deposition in CR) than at sites experiencing low N deposition (as the 2.5th percentile value of total N deposition) (Fig 2A). Species richness also shows significant declines in SV (23%, p < 0.001) and PA (20%, p = 0.011), with both ranking just below CR in terms of impact. Negative responses of arthropod species richness to N deposition were observed to be weakest in PF (only decline 0.7%, p < 0.001, Fig 2A and S3 Table). Total abundance also showed varied responses to N deposition among the different land-use types (Fig 2B and S4 Table), with the greatest losses observed in PA (decline 65%, p < 0.001, S4 Table), followed by PV and then SV (Fig 2B and S4 Table). The effect of N deposition on total abundance in sites of CR (decline 34%, p = 0.024, S4 Table) and PF (decline 38%, p < 0.001, S4 Table) were significantly lower compared to that in sites classed as the other three land-use types.

Fig 2. The response of arthropod species richness (a) and total abundance (b) to the interaction of N deposition and land use.

Fig 2

Likelihood ratio test of the interactive effect of N deposition and land use: species richness x19,232 = 35.62, p < 0.001; total abundance x18,222 = 30.68, p < 0.001. Values represent the percentage difference compared with Primary vegetation sites with the 2.5th percentile value of total N deposition. The lines with different colors represent the median predicted value for each land-use type, with shaded areas representing the 95% confidence intervals. The results are predicted across 95% of the range of N deposition values for each land-use type. The number of sites were: Primary vegetation, Nsite = 1,615; Secondary vegetation, Nsite = 1,511; Cropland, Nsite = 1,563; Pasture, Nsite = 1,347; Plantation forest, Nsite = 380. The N deposition range used for plotting covers from 2.5% to 97.5% of sampled sites for all land-use types included in the model: 109.4–2491.6 mg N m−2 yr−1. The data underlying this figure can be found in https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.29109170.

Similar responses of arthropod diversity to land use and N deposition were also observed when reduced N deposition and oxidized N deposition were analyzed separately (S5-S8 Tables). However, reduced N deposition had a stronger impact on species diversity (for species richness model x22,232 = 23.13, p < 0.001; total abundance model x21,222 = 16.71, p < 0.001), while impacts from oxidized N deposition were weaker (for species richness model x22,232 = 8.04, p = 0.004; total abundance model x21,222 = 10.10, p = 0.001). For example, when evaluating the impacts of N deposition on arthropod species richness in CR, reduced N deposition leads to a 12% greater decline compared to oxidized N deposition.

The effect of SNH in buffering the impact of N deposition on arthropod diversity

Increases of N deposition had a less pronounced negative effect on species richness as SNH coverage in the surrounding landscape increased (Fig 3). These SNH proportion-linked buffering effects were observed for all land-use types except CR, while the strength of associated arthropod diversity benefits varied among land-use types (Fig 3A). Buffering effects were stronger in PV and SV than in PA and Planation forest (Fig 3Aa, 3Ab, 3Ad, and 3Ae). Although species richness in CR generally benefits from a high percentage of SNH, no buffering effect against N deposition was observed, as the declining trend remained unaffected by increased SNH (Fig 3Ac). For total abundance, the buffering effects of increased SNH were also observed in sites of PA, PF, SV, and PV (Fig 3Ba, 3Bb, 3Bd, and 3Be), where a higher percentage of SNH in the surrounding landscape supported a greater abundance of arthropods. Although there was no buffering effect observed for abundance patterns in CR (Fig 3Bc), higher percentages of SNH benefited arthropod abundance at least in sites with low levels of N deposition (N deposition <1,000 mg N m−2 yr−1).

Fig 3. The interactive effect of SNH and N deposition on arthropod species richness (A) and total abundance (B) in different land-use types.

Fig 3

Likelihood ratio test of the interactive effect of N deposition and proportion of SNH in different land use types: species richness x18,232 = 40.09, p = p < 0.001; total abundance x17,222 = 33.81, p < 0.001. Values represent the percentage difference compared with Primary vegetation with the 2.5th percentile value of total N deposition and 100% surrounding SNH. The lines with different colors represent the median predicted value of different percentages of SNH in the surrounding landscape, with shaded areas representing the 95% confidence intervals. The data underlying this figure can be found in https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.29109170.

Discussion

Earlier studies of the effects of N deposition on biodiversity mainly focused on plant diversity [24,2628]. The few studies reporting effects of N deposition on local animal biodiversity either focused on a small selection of taxa [31,7880], or studied responses observed under highly controlled N deposition rates [25]. Here, we demonstrated, for the first time, a negative effect of N deposition on arthropod diversity at the global scale across different land use types. We further highlighted the interactions between N deposition and landscape composition in influencing arthropod diversity, with particular focus on natural and semi-natural habitats.

Variation in N deposition impacts across land-use types

Similar to earlier studies [7,38,81,82], we show that N deposition impacts on arthropod diversity are not acting uniformly across land-use types. Due to habitats dominated by primary and secondary natural vegetation commonly being located distant from major sources of N emissions and also historically experiencing low levels of N deposition [81], their arthropod diversity can be expected to show an enhanced sensitivity to N deposition when compared for example to assemblages in PF or on pastureland. As highlighted by previous research [30,79,81], the observed decline in animal diversity caused by N deposition is frequently linked to: (1) reduced plant diversity, which lowers food diversity; (2) increased plant biomass and density, which cool the microclimate and make habitat conditions less suitable for survival; and (3) changes in plant chemical composition, leading to reduced food quality. In addition, N deposition also interacts with management practices. For instance, higher intensity land use is per se associated both with biodiversity losses and high levels of N deposition and N application [83]. Responses to N deposition are further differentiated by differences in soil pH that drives specific plant responses to the depositions, which in turn affects animal species [30,84]. Therefore, the combined effects of these variables under different land-use types lead to a differential impact of N deposition on biodiversity across varying land-uses [85] (Fig 2).

The negative response of species richness to N deposition in CR could be partly related to long-term exposure to N deposition related to fertilization applications in combination with atmospheric deposition [86]. Higher N deposition also leads to soil N enrichment and nitrification [84,87], which may result in increased risk of pest outbreaks [38] that in turn require more intensive applications of pesticides that further affect biodiversity in anthropogenic habitats like CR, and this also occurs to PF and PA. As many species in landscapes with a high CR cover will have been filtered out [88], already, the species pool left at such sites may be highly stress-tolerant and pre-adapted to high levels of N exposure, resulting in limited diversity responses in such landscapes. In PA, the increased prevalence of N-demanding species at the expense of less competitive ones may lead to a reduction in food resources, thereby negatively impacting the diversity of arthropod communities [89]. In Central Europe, for example, plant species richness in grassland decreased by approximately 23% with increasing N deposition [89], a trend similar to our results for arthropod richness. N enrichment may also increase biomass accumulation in the vegetation that in turn changes the vegetation structure and can enhance fire risks during dry spells [90], again potentially adversely affecting arthropod communities. It can be anticipated that changes in arthropod diversity within more natural habitats may primarily be driven by N deposition-induced shifts in plant community composition toward species less preferred by arthropods, or a homogenization and increased density of the vegetation that can shrink ecological niche space. In contrast, responses in human-dominated landscapes such as CR will more likely be influenced by habitat alteration caused by, or associated with enhanced N deposition. However, these interpretations remain hypothetical and require further empirical validation through specific case studies [29]. Nonetheless, it is clear that N deposition can not only have negative effects on biodiversity, but N addition may significantly increase arthropod biomass, with grassland eutrophication, for example, being linked to an increase in arthropod abundance [91,92]. Moreover, arthropod responses may vary depending on specific limiting nutrients in different environments [93].

Importance of semi-natural and natural habitat

Consistent with our hypothesis, increasing the amount of SNH in the surrounding landscape partly buffers adverse effects of N deposition on arthropod biodiversity. These positive buffering effects might in the case of forests be related to their ability to directly alleviate the impacts of atmospheric N deposition on surrounding areas by intercepting N compounds in their complex canopies [21]. Meanwhile, some managed woodlands, for example, in agricultural landscapes, have not only a large leaf area, but create increased turbulence that helps dilute N deposition, thereby reducing the impact on the forest ground [43,94], but also on surrounding agricultural land, with these SNH acting as N sinks [21,95]. For example, in the UK and other parts of Europe, forest shelterbelts have been established in farmland to reduce the impacts of N deposition [96,97]. Similarly, compared to areas without them, areas with planted shrubs experience less biodiversity loss due to N deposition, as N is taken up and utilized more quickly by the plant community, reducing its direct accumulation in the soil and helping to mitigate biodiversity loss [98]. Furthermore, an increase in SNH generally increases the landscape heterogeneity, which benefits the conservation of a high species diversity at the landscape level by providing additional niches, resources, and potential refuge sites [44,99,100]. Therefore, preserving or establishing SNH across agricultural landscapes (dominated, e.g., by PF, PA or CR) offers a potential mitigation measure to counteract some of the negative effects of N deposition on biodiversity.

To further enhance the buffering effect, it is important to increase the proportion of SNH in the surrounding landscape. In line also with previous studies, some areas should be left ‘for nature’ [101104] not only to conserve biodiversity and associated ecosystem services (e.g., biological pest control or pollination in landscapes used for food production), but also to buffer for the potential negative impacts of high N depositions. Meanwhile, although SNH in the surrounding landscape can buffer the negative impacts of N deposition, caution is needed not to extrapolate the results beyond the scope of the sampling. It should be noted that high N deposition in areas with a high proportion of SNH even has a positive effect (not just a buffering effect) (Fig 3). The result was in similar to a previous study, which reported the presence of shrubs and N deposition had an interactive effect on soil invertebrate diversity resulting in either an increase or a non-significant increase in invertebrate diversity when shrubs were planted [98]. However, considering our sampling sites rarely encompassed areas with both high proportions of SHN and high-level N deposition, these positive effects of SNH need to be validated with more field observations in the future.

Implication for biodiversity conservation

Similar to previous studies on plant biodiversity [105,106], we found that deposition of reduced N, which is closely related to agricultural intensification, has a stronger negative impact on species diversity compared to oxidized N deposition. This likely linked to the aforementioned soil acidification due to deposition of these reduced forms of N [107]. Reduced (ammonium-dominated) N deposition will therefore alter soil microbial communities, plant secondary metabolites, and plant nutrient ratios more severely than oxidized N deposition, leading to plant damage and reduced plant quality, which in turn can affect arthropod food acquisition [29]. A further increase in reduced N deposition in the future [33,42], will likely enhance direct losses of arthropod diversity. This highlights the importance of developing measures to reduce the negative impact of N deposition, and especially of reduced N deposition, on arthropod diversity [33,42]. It is therefore highly important to reduce NHx in particular, not least through changes in agricultural activities and fertilizer practices.

Targeted management aimed at enhancing plant and animal diversity could also include biomass removal through harvesting or grazing that mitigates N deposition effects by potentially directly removing some N, but also by increasing light availability, reducing vegetation height, and promoting heterogeneous microhabitats [61,108,109]. However, such disturbances may also cause direct mortality or temporarily reduce food resources [110]. In European grasslands and woodlands, liming is also commonly used to enhance N mineralization and reduce local N accumulation [111]. Furthermore, highly N-efficient agricultural practices and crops, and improved livestock management, may provide additional benefits [42]. Given the high N emissions from animal production, dietary shifts—such as replacing animal-based with plant-based or arthropod-based proteins—may be part of the solution. Our study highlights the need to better integrate the impacts of N deposition into biodiversity conservation targets—a factor that warrants greater attention [5], particularly regarding arthropods that are critical to ecosystem functioning and sustainable agriculture [79]. This systematic approach has gained heightened significance given the documented temporal escalation in N deposition rates [112], particularly in addressing biodiversity conservation challenges posed to arthropod populations.

Limitations and future perspectives

It is worth noting that N deposition may impact animal communities at smaller spatial scales than we consider here [38]. Our large-scale analysis was limited by the coarse resolution of available N deposition data. Nevertheless, comparison with finer resolution data for one region (Europe) revealed a generally consistent trend in the effect of N deposition on arthropod species biodiversity (S2 Text and S9S10 Tables, with a Pearson correlation coefficient between fine and coarse N deposition data of 0.85). Regardless of scales considered, N deposition was generally associated with biodiversity loss [113]. It is also noteworthy that regions experiencing the highest nitrogen deposition, such as parts of China and India, are severely under-represented in the PREDICTS database, which may lead to an underestimation of the negative impacts of extreme N deposition on biodiversity.

Additionally, our models’ R2 values were not very high (S3S4 Tables), a trend reflected in earlier studies using the PREDICTS database [18,114]. Although previous studies have demonstrated greater variance explained by N deposition models than our model [27,89], the markedly lower explanatory power observed in our study may be attributable to two methodological distinctions: (1) the predominant focus on plant diversity (as opposed to arthropod diversity) in prior investigations, and (2) the comparatively restricted geographic scope of earlier research. The impact of N deposition on biodiversity was comparatively less significant than that of land use changes and agricultural intensification [11,12,50]. Nonetheless, even once controlling for effects linked to other variables known to affect biodiversity in our models, N deposition was still a significant explanatory variable. Therefore, while N deposition may not be the primary driver of arthropod diversity in agricultural and other systems, an effective N management aimed at reducing overall deposition rates is still an important component of global biodiversity conservation.

Future research is needed, under controlled experimental settings that reflect current and projected N deposition levels, to explore and test potential response mechanisms on arthropods, especially considering the cascading effects from changes in plant species [29]. Experimental sampling of arthropod communities is particularly needed in regions with high N deposition, such as China and India. On the other hand, it is also necessary to sample arthropods along gradients of N deposition—a fine-grained observational approach. Compared to high N additions in controlled experiments, such studies, which are closer to natural environmental conditions-will better support the conservation of species affected by atmospheric N deposition. In particular, comparative experiments between reduced and oxidized N deposition that separate the effects of these two forms will be more beneficial for implementing targeted biodiversity conservation measures.

Conclusions

Our study highlights the necessity to address the detrimental effects of N deposition on biodiversity, as N deposition are still rising globally [42,112] and, according to our findings, are hence posing a significant and increasing threat to arthropod diversity. Failure to preserve and potentially expand SNH remnants across human-dominated landscapes may therefore result not only in significant arthropod diversity declines due to local N deposition, but will also impact diversity-associated ecosystem services like pollination and biological pest control that underpin a sustainable agricultural production. We therefore propose setting minimum SNH targets within production-dominant landscapes, while simultaneously promoting the ecological intensification of the production systems to safeguard biodiversity while securing sustainable yields even under the context of N deposition increases [49,115,116]. The impacts of N deposition we have demonstrated in our investigations also clearly highlight the importance of including reduction strategies for these deposition in agricultural production systems and environmental management approaches around the globe.

Supporting information

S1 Fig. Distribution of oxidized nitrogen deposition (NOy) and reduced nitrogen deposition (NHx) globally.

N deposition values were loge-transformed, with oxidized N deposition ranging from 0.7 mg N m−2 yr−1 to 3220.6 mg N m−2 yr−1, reduced nitrogen deposition ranging from 0.0 mg N m−2 yr−1 to 6576.8 mg N m−2 yr−1. The outline map is based on the Natural Earth (http://www.naturalearthdata.com/about/terms-of-use/), which is published under a CC-BY 4.0 license. The data underlying this figure can be found in link: https://thredds.met.no/thredds/catalog/data/EMEP/Articles_data/Schwede_etal_Ndep_2018/catalog.html.

(DOCX)

pbio.3003285.s001.docx (1.2MB, docx)
S2 Fig. Distribution of N deposition sampling sites in Europe.

The outline map is based on the Natural Earth (http://www.naturalearthdata.com/about/terms-of-use/), which is published under a CC-BY 4.0 license. The data underlying this figure can be found in https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.29109170.

(DOCX)

pbio.3003285.s002.docx (473.2KB, docx)
S3 Fig. The effects of the total N deposition interact with land use on Arthropods Chao estimated species richness.

Values represent the percentage difference compared with Primary vegetation with the 2.5th percentile value of total N deposition among sampled sites. The lines with different colors represent the median predicted value for each land-use type, with shaded areas representing the 95% confidence intervals. The results are predicted across 95% of the range of N deposition values for each land-use type. The number of sites were: Primary vegetation, Nsite = 1,094; Secondary vegetation, Nsite = 1,136; Cropland, Nsite = 1,285; Pasture, Nsite = 989; Plantation forest, Nsite = 277. The N deposition range used for plotting covers from 2.5% to 97.5% of sampled sites for each of the land-use types included in the model: 109.4–2326.3 mg N m−2 yr−1. The data underlying this figure can be found in https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.29109170.

(DOCX)

pbio.3003285.s003.docx (70.8KB, docx)
S4 Fig. Model checks for the final species richness model obtained through backward stepwise selection for the study.

A, fitted versus residuals plot to check for constant variance across the range of fitted values. B is Normal QQ-plot to check for a normal distribution of residuals. C is distribution of P-values from sets of Moran’s I test for spatial autocorrelation in the residuals for each study. Red line represents a P-value of 0.05. The left of red line represents the studies with significant spatial autocorrelation. D is observed values versus fitted values. The data underlying this figure can be found in https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.29109170.

(DOCX)

pbio.3003285.s004.docx (31.1KB, docx)
S5 Fig. Model checks for the final total abundance model obtained through backward stepwise selection for the study.

A, fitted versus residuals plot to check for constant variance across the range of fitted values. B is Normal QQ-plot to check for a normal distribution of residuals. C is distribution of P-values from sets of Moran’s I test for spatial autocorrelation in the residuals for each study. Red line represents a P-value of 0.05. The left of red line represents the studies with significant spatial autocorrelation. D is observed values versus fitted values. The data underlying this figure can be found in https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.29109170.

(DOCX)

pbio.3003285.s005.docx (37.7KB, docx)
S1 Table. likelihood test result for species richness model.

(DOCX)

pbio.3003285.s006.docx (17.9KB, docx)
S2 Table. likelihood test result for total abundance model.

(DOCX)

pbio.3003285.s007.docx (17.8KB, docx)
S3 Table. The effects of the total nitrogen deposition on species richness of Arthropods.

Output mainly includes two parts: fixed part and random part. Fixed part includes estimates, 95% confidence intervals (CI) and p-values. Random part include: τ00 is the model variance explained by the random effects (SS represent studies, SSB represent blocks, SSBS represent sites within blocks), σ2 is the residual variance, and the marginal and conditional R2 values.

(DOCX)

pbio.3003285.s008.docx (19.8KB, docx)
S4 Table. The effects of the total nitrogen deposition on total abundance of Arthropods.

Output mainly includes two parts: fixed part and random part. Fixed part includes estimates, 95% confidence intervals (CI) and p-values. Random part include: τ00 is the model variance explained by the random effects (SS represent studies, SSB represent blocks, SSBS represent sites within blocks), σ2 is the residual variance, and the marginal and conditional R2 values.

(DOCX)

pbio.3003285.s009.docx (19.7KB, docx)
S5 Table. Effects of oxidized nitrogen deposition (NOy) on the species richness of Arthropods.

Output mainly includes two parts: fixed part and random part. Fixed part includes estimates, 95% confidence intervals (CI) and p-values. Random part include: τ00 is the model variance explained by the random effects (SS represent studies, SSB represent blocks, SSBS represent sites within blocks), σ2 is the residual variance, and the marginal and conditional R2 values.

(DOCX)

pbio.3003285.s010.docx (20.1KB, docx)
S6 Table. Effects of reduced nitrogen deposition (NHx) on the species richness of Arthropods.

Output mainly includes two parts: fixed part and random part. Fixed part includes estimates, 95% confidence intervals (CI) and p-values. Random part include: τ00 is the model variance explained by the random effects (SS represent studies, SSB represent blocks, SSBS represent sites within blocks), σ2 is the residual variance, and the marginal and conditional R2 values.

(DOCX)

pbio.3003285.s011.docx (20.1KB, docx)
S7 Table. Effects of oxidized nitrogen deposition (NOy) on the total abundance of Arthropods.

Output mainly includes two parts: fixed part and random part. Fixed part includes estimates, 95% confidence intervals (CI) and p-values. Random part include: τ00 is the model variance explained by the random effects (SS represent studies, SSB represent blocks, SSBS represent sites within blocks), σ2 is the residual variance, and the marginal and conditional R2 values.

(DOCX)

pbio.3003285.s012.docx (19.9KB, docx)
S8 Table. Effects of reduced nitrogen deposition (NHx) on the total abundance of Arthropods.

Output mainly includes two parts: fixed part and random part. Fixed part includes estimates, 95% confidence intervals (CI) and p-values. Random part include: τ00 is the model variance explained by the random effects (SS represent studies, SSB represent blocks, SSBS represent sites within blocks), σ2 is the residual variance, and the marginal and conditional R2 values.

(DOCX)

pbio.3003285.s013.docx (20.1KB, docx)
S9 Table. The effects of nitrogen deposition on the species richness of Arthropods in Europe with a finer resolution dataset (0.1° × 0.1°).

Output mainly includes two parts: fixed part and random part. Fixed part includes estimates, 95% confidence intervals (CI) and p-values. Random part includes: τ00 for the model variance explained by the random effects (SS represent studies, SSB represent blocks, SSBS represent sites within blocks), σ2 for the residual variance, and the marginal and conditional R2 values. The oxnrdnRS represent the nitrogen deposition data derived from EMEP model.

(DOCX)

pbio.3003285.s014.docx (20.4KB, docx)
S10 Table. The effects of nitrogen deposition on the total abundance of Arthropods in Europe with a finer resolution dataset (0.1° × 0.1°).

Output mainly includes two parts: fixed part and random part. Fixed part includes estimates, 95% confidence intervals (CI) and p-values. Random part includes: τ00 for the model variance explained by the random effects (SS represent studies, SSB represent blocks, SSBS represent sites within blocks), σ2 for the residual variance, and the marginal and conditional R2 values. The oxnrdnRS represent the nitrogen deposition data derived from EMEP model.

(DOCX)

pbio.3003285.s015.docx (20.2KB, docx)
S11 Table. The effects of the total nitrogen deposition on Chao estimated species richness of Arthropods.

Output mainly includes two parts: fixed part and random part. Fixed part includes estimates, 95% confidence intervals (CI) and p-values. Random part includes: τ00 for the model variance explained by the random effects (SS represent studies, SSB represent blocks, SSBS represent sites within blocks), σ2 for the residual variance, and the marginal and conditional R2 values.

(DOCX)

pbio.3003285.s016.docx (20.4KB, docx)
S12 Table. Variance inflation factors for the explanatory variables in richness model.

(DOCX)

pbio.3003285.s017.docx (17.8KB, docx)
S13 Table. Variance inflation factors for the explanatory variables in abundance model.

(DOCX)

pbio.3003285.s018.docx (17.7KB, docx)
S1 Text. Model structure and selection.

(DOCX)

pbio.3003285.s019.docx (20.6KB, docx)
S2 Text. Test of finer N deposition data with 0.1° resolution.

(DOCX)

pbio.3003285.s020.docx (17.6KB, docx)
S3 Text. The effects of the total N deposition on species richness of Arthropods when Chao estimated species richness index was used.

(DOCX)

pbio.3003285.s021.docx (17.3KB, docx)

Acknowledgments

We thank David Makowski from University Paris-Saclay for his assistance with the statistical analysis in the paper.

Abbreviations

CR

Cropland

MAP

mean annual precipitation

MAT

mean annual temperature

PA

Pasture

PV

Primary vegetation

PF

Plantation forest

SNH

semi-natural and natural habitats

SV

Secondary vegetation

UR

Urban

VIFs

variance inflation factors

Data Availability

The data that support the findings of this study are openly available in figshare at DOI: https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.29109170.

Funding Statement

This study was supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China (grant number: U24A20412 and grant number: 41871186) (https://www.nsfc.gov.cn/) (received by YL); China Scholarship Council (grant number: 202306350102) (https://www.csc.edu.cn/) (received by SF) and Natural Environment Research Council (grant number: NE/R010811/1) (https://nerc.ukri.org/) (received by TN). The funder had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Kuypers MMM, Marchant HK, Kartal B. The microbial nitrogen-cycling network. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2018;16(5):263–76. doi: 10.1038/nrmicro.2018.9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Sutton MA, Howard CM, Erisman JW, Billen G, Bleeker A, Grennfelt P, et al. The European nitrogen assessment: sources, effects and policy perspectives. Cambridge University Press. 2011. [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Vitousek PM, Aber JD, Howarth RW, Likens GE, Matson PA, Schindler DW, et al. Human alteration of the global nitrogen cycle: sources and consequences. Ecol Appl. 1997;7(3):737–50. doi: 10.1890/1051-0761(1997)007[0737:haotgn]2.0.co;2 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Bobbink R, Braun S, Nordin A, Schutz K, Strengbom J, Weijters M. Empirical N critical loads for natural and semi-natural ecosystems: 2010 update and review. 2010. http://www.rivm.nl/thema/images/FinalDraftCriticalLoads2010_tcm61–47893.pdf [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Wagner DL. Insect declines in the anthropocene. Annu Rev Entomol. 2020;65:457–80. doi: 10.1146/annurev-ento-011019-025151 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Frey B, Moser B, Tytgat B, Zimmermann S, Alberti J, Biederman LA, et al. Long-term N-addition alters the community structure of functionally important N-cycling soil microorganisms across global grasslands. Soil Biol Biochem. 2023;176:108887. doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2022.108887 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Pardo LH, Robin-Abbott MJ, Driscoll CT. Assessment of nitrogen deposition effects and empirical critical loads of nitrogen for ecoregions of the United States. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station. 2011. doi: 10.2737/nrs-gtr-80 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Galloway JN, Townsend AR, Erisman JW, Bekunda M, Cai Z, Freney JR, et al. Transformation of the nitrogen cycle: recent trends, questions, and potential solutions. Science. 2008;320(5878):889–92. doi: 10.1126/science.1136674 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Schlesinger WH. On the fate of anthropogenic nitrogen. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2009;106(1):203–8. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0810193105 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Jaureguiberry P, Titeux N, Wiemers M, Bowler DE, Coscieme L, Golden AS, et al. The direct drivers of recent global anthropogenic biodiversity loss. Sci Adv. 2022;8(45):eabm9982. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.abm9982 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Payne RJ, Dise NB, Field CD, Dore AJ, Caporn SJ, Stevens CJ. Nitrogen deposition and plant biodiversity: past, present, and future. Front Ecol Environ. 2017;15(8):431–6. doi: 10.1002/fee.1528 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Sage RF. Global change biology: a primer. Glob Chang Biol. 2020;26(1):3–30. doi: 10.1111/gcb.14893 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.CBD. The Kunming-Montreal global biodiversity framework. Convention on Biological Diversity. 2022. https://www.cbd.int/doc/c/e6d3/cd1d/daf663719a03902a9b116c34/cop-15-l-25-en.pdf [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Wagner DL, Fox R, Salcido DM, Dyer LA. A window to the world of global insect declines: moth biodiversity trends are complex and heterogeneous. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2021;118(2):e2002549117. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2002549117 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Ganuza C, Redlich S, Uhler J, Tobisch C, Rojas-Botero S, Peters MK, et al. Interactive effects of climate and land use on pollinator diversity differ among taxa and scales. Sci Adv. 2022;8(18):eabm9359. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.abm9359 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Neff F, Korner-Nievergelt F, Rey E, Albrecht M, Bollmann K, Cahenzli F, et al. Different roles of concurring climate and regional land-use changes in past 40 years’ insect trends. Nat Commun. 2022;13(1):7611. doi: 10.1038/s41467-022-35223-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Newbold T, Hudson LN, Hill SLL, Contu S, Lysenko I, Senior RA, et al. Global effects of land use on local terrestrial biodiversity. Nature. 2015;520(7545):45–50. doi: 10.1038/nature14324 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Outhwaite CL, McCann P, Newbold T. Agriculture and climate change are reshaping insect biodiversity worldwide. Nature. 2022;605(7908):97–102. doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-04644-x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Semenchuk P, Plutzar C, Kastner T, Matej S, Bidoglio G, Erb K-H, et al. Relative effects of land conversion and land-use intensity on terrestrial vertebrate diversity. Nat Commun. 2022;13(1):615. doi: 10.1038/s41467-022-28245-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Ackerman D, Millet DB, Chen X. Global estimates of inorganic nitrogen deposition across four decades. Global Biogeochemical Cycles. 2019;33(1):100–7. doi: 10.1029/2018gb005990 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Hicks WK, Whitfield CP, Bealey WJ, Sutton MA. Nitrogen deposition and natura 2000. 2011. doi: 20.500.12592/065g87 [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Wen Z, Xu W, Li Q, Han M, Tang A, Zhang Y, et al. Changes of nitrogen deposition in China from 1980 to 2018. Environ Int. 2020;144:106022. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2020.106022 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Bebber DP. The gap between atmospheric nitrogen deposition experiments and reality. Sci Total Environ. 2021;801:149774. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.149774 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Roth T, Kohli L, Rihm B, Amrhein V, Achermann B. Nitrogen deposition and multi-dimensional plant diversity at the landscape scale. R Soc Open Sci. 2015;2(4):150017. doi: 10.1098/rsos.150017 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Schipper AM, Hilbers JP, Meijer JR, Antão LH, Benítez-López A, de Jonge MMJ, et al. Projecting terrestrial biodiversity intactness with GLOBIO 4. Glob Chang Biol. 2020;26(2):760–71. doi: 10.1111/gcb.14848 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Simkin SM, Allen EB, Bowman WD, Clark CM, Belnap J, Brooks ML, et al. Conditional vulnerability of plant diversity to atmospheric nitrogen deposition across the United States. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2016;113(15):4086–91. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1515241113 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Stevens CJ, Duprè C, Dorland E, Gaudnik C, Gowing DJG, Bleeker A, et al. Nitrogen deposition threatens species richness of grasslands across Europe. Environ Pollut. 2010;158(9):2940–5. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2010.06.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Zhang B, Ma W, Song L, Liang X, Xi X, Wang Z. Nitrogen addition and experimental drought simplified arthropod network in temperate grassland. Funct Ecol. 2023;37(7):1815–26. doi: 10.1111/1365-2435.14341 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Nijssen ME, WallisDeVries MF, Siepel H. Pathways for the effects of increased nitrogen deposition on fauna. Biol Conserv. 2017;212:423–31. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2017.02.022 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Stevens CJ, David TI, Storkey J. Atmospheric nitrogen deposition in terrestrial ecosystems: its impact on plant communities and consequences across trophic levels. Funct Ecol. 2018;32(7):1757–69. doi: 10.1111/1365-2435.13063 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.WallisDeVries MF, Bobbink R. Nitrogen deposition impacts on biodiversity in terrestrial ecosystems: mechanisms and perspectives for restoration. Biol Conserv. 2017;212:387–9. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2017.01.017 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Lu X, Jiang H, Zhang X, Jin J. Relationship between nitrogen deposition and LUCC and its impact on terrestrial ecosystem carbon budgets in China. Sci China Earth Sci. 2016;59(12):2285–94. doi: 10.1007/s11430-015-5277-0 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Li Y, Schichtel BA, Walker JT, Schwede DB, Chen X, Lehmann CMB, et al. Increasing importance of deposition of reduced nitrogen in the United States. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2016;113(21):5874–9. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1525736113 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Schwede DB, Simpson D, Tan J, Fu JS, Dentener F, Du E, et al. Spatial variation of modelled total, dry and wet nitrogen deposition to forests at global scale. Environ Pollut. 2018;243(Pt B):1287–301. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2018.09.084 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Chakravarthy AK, Kammar V, Shashank PR. Arthropods: evolution and ecology. Economic and ecological significance of arthropods in diversified ecosystems. Springer Singapore. 2016. p. 1–16. doi: 10.1007/978-981-10-1524-3_1 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Ghisbain G, Thiery W, Massonnet F, Erazo D, Rasmont P, Michez D, et al. Projected decline in European bumblebee populations in the twenty-first century. Nature. 2024;628(8007):337–41. doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-06471-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Nicholson CC, Knapp J, Kiljanek T, Albrecht M, Chauzat M-P, Costa C, et al. Pesticide use negatively affects bumble bees across European landscapes. Nature. 2024;628(8007):355–8. doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-06773-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Maskell LC, Smart SM, Bullock JM, Thompson K, Stevens CJ. Nitrogen deposition causes widespread loss of species richness in British habitats. Glob Change Biol. 2010;16(2):671–9. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2486.2009.02022.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Ceulemans T, Hulsmans E, Vanden Ende W, Honnay O. Nutrient enrichment is associated with altered nectar and pollen chemical composition in Succisa pratensis Moench and increased larval mortality of its pollinator Bombus terrestris L. PLoS One. 2017;12(4):e0175160. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0175160 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Stevens CJ, Thompson K, Grime JP, Long CJ, Gowing DJG. Contribution of acidification and eutrophication to declines in species richness of calcifuge grasslands along a gradient of atmospheric nitrogen deposition. Funct Ecol. 2010;24(2):478–84. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2435.2009.01663.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Klein A-M, Vaissière BE, Cane JH, Steffan-Dewenter I, Cunningham SA, Kremen C, et al. Importance of pollinators in changing landscapes for world crops. Proc Biol Sci. 2007;274(1608):303–13. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2006.3721 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Liu L, Xu W, Lu X, Zhong B, Guo Y, Lu X, et al. Exploring global changes in agricultural ammonia emissions and their contribution to nitrogen deposition since 1980. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2022;119(14):e2121998119. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2121998119 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Dragosits U, Theobald MR, Place CJ, ApSimon HM, Sutton MA. The potential for spatial planning at the landscape level to mitigate the effects of atmospheric ammonia deposition. Environ Sci Policy. 2006;9(7–8):626–38. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2006.07.002 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Mestre L, Schirmel J, Hetz J, Kolb S, Pfister SC, Amato M, et al. Both woody and herbaceous semi-natural habitats are essential for spider overwintering in European farmland. Agric Ecosyst Environ. 2018;267:141–6. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2018.08.018 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Outhwaite CL, Ortiz AMD, Spooner FEB, Dalin C, Newbold T. Availability and proximity of natural habitat influence cropland biodiversity in forest biomes globally. Global Ecol Biogeogr. 2022;31(8):1589–602. doi: 10.1111/geb.13532 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Papanikolaou AD, Kühn I, Frenzel M, Schweiger O. Semi‐natural habitats mitigate the effects of temperature rise on wild bees. J Appl Ecol. 2016;54(2):527–36. doi: 10.1111/1365-2664.12763 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Raven PH, Wagner DL. Agricultural intensification and climate change are rapidly decreasing insect biodiversity. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2021;118(2):e2002548117. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2002548117 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Tscharntke T, Clough Y, Wanger TC, Jackson L, Motzke I, Perfecto I, et al. Global food security, biodiversity conservation and the future of agricultural intensification. Biol Conserv. 2012;151(1):53–9. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2012.01.068 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Tscharntke T, Grass I, Wanger TC, Westphal C, Batáry P. Beyond organic farming—harnessing biodiversity-friendly landscapes. Trends Ecol Evol. 2021;36(10):919–30. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2021.06.010 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Gallego‐Zamorano J, Huijbregts MAJ, Schipper AM. Changes in plant species richness due to land use and nitrogen deposition across the globe. Divers Distrib. 2022;28(4):745–55. doi: 10.1111/ddi.13476 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Habel JC, Trusch R, Schmitt T, Ochse M, Ulrich W. Long-term large-scale decline in relative abundances of butterfly and burnet moth species across south-western Germany. Sci Rep. 2019;9(1):14921. doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-51424-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Global Biodiversity Outlook 5. Montreal: CBD. 2020. https://www.cbd.int/gbo/gbo5/publication/gbo-5-en.pdf [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Hudson L, Newbold T, Contu S, Hill SLL, Lysenko I, Palma AD. The 2016 release of the PREDICTS database. 2016. doi: 10.5519/0066354 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Hudson L, Newbold T, Contu S, Hill SLL, Lysenko I, Palma AD. The 2016 release of the PREDICTS database V1.1. 2023. doi: 10.5519/j4sh7e0w [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Hudson LN, Newbold T, Contu S, Hill SLL, Lysenko I, De Palma A, et al. The database of the PREDICTS (Projecting Responses of Ecological Diversity In Changing Terrestrial Systems) project. Ecol Evol. 2016;7(1):145–88. doi: 10.1002/ece3.2579 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Hudson LN, Newbold T, Contu S, Hill SLL, Lysenko I, De Palma A, et al. The PREDICTS database: a global database of how local terrestrial biodiversity responds to human impacts. Ecol Evol. 2014;4(24):4701–35. doi: 10.1002/ece3.1303 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Newbold T, Hudson LN, Phillips HRP, Hill SLL, Contu S, Lysenko I, et al. A global model of the response of tropical and sub-tropical forest biodiversity to anthropogenic pressures. Proc Biol Sci. 2014;281(1792):20141371. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2014.1371 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Chao A, Chazdon RL, Colwell RK, Shen T. A new statistical approach for assessing similarity of species composition with incidence and abundance data. Ecol Lett. 2004;8(2):148–59. doi: 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2004.00707.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Galmarini S, Koffi B, Solazzo E, Keating T, Hogrefe C, Schulz M, et al. Technical note: coordination and harmonization of the multi-scale, multi-model activities HTAP2, AQMEII3, and MICS-Asia3: simulations, emission inventories, boundary conditions, and model output formats. Atmos Chem Phys Discuss. 2017;17:1543–55. doi: 10.5194/acp-17-1543-2017 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Tan J, Fu JS, Dentener F, Sun J, Emmons L, Tilmes S, et al. Multi-model study of HTAP II on sulfur and nitrogen deposition. Atmos Chem Phys. 2018;18: 6847–66. doi: 10.5194/acp-18-6847-2018 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Borer ET, Stevens CJ. Nitrogen deposition and climate: an integrated synthesis. Trends Ecol Evol. 2022;37(6):541–52. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2022.02.013 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Boutin M, Corcket E, Alard D, Villar L, Jiménez J, Blaix C, et al. Nitrogen deposition and climate change have increased vascular plant species richness and altered the composition of grazed subalpine grasslands. J Ecol. 2017;105(5):1199–209. doi: 10.1111/1365-2745.12743 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Cheng Y, Wang J, Chang SX, Cai Z, Müller C, Zhang J. Nitrogen deposition affects both net and gross soil nitrogen transformations in forest ecosystems: a review. Environ Pollut. 2019;244:608–16. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2018.10.054 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Harris I, Osborn TJ, Jones P, Lister D. Version 4 of the CRU TS monthly high-resolution gridded multivariate climate dataset. Sci Data. 2020;7(1):109. doi: 10.1038/s41597-020-0453-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Potter P, Ramankutty N, Bennett EM, Donner SD. Characterizing the spatial patterns of global fertilizer application and manure production. Earth Interact. 2010;14(2):1–22. doi: 10.1175/2009ei288.1 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Janssens-Maenhout G, Crippa M, Guizzardi D, Dentener F, Muntean M, Pouliot G, et al. HTAP_v2.2: a mosaic of regional and global emission grid maps for 2008 and 2010 to study hemispheric transport of air pollution. Atmos Chem Phys. 2015;15(19):11411–32. doi: 10.5194/acp-15-11411-2015 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Kleijn D, Kohler F, Báldi A, Batáry P, Concepción ED, Clough Y, et al. On the relationship between farmland biodiversity and land-use intensity in Europe. Proc Biol Sci. 2009;276(1658):903–9. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2008.1509 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Hengl T, Mendes de Jesus J, Heuvelink GBM, Ruiperez Gonzalez M, Kilibarda M, Blagotić A, et al. SoilGrids250m: global gridded soil information based on machine learning. PLoS One. 2017;12(2):e0169748. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0169748 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Hoskins AJ, Bush A, Gilmore J, Harwood T, Hudson LN, Ware C, et al. Downscaling land-use data to provide global 30″ estimates of five land-use classes. Ecol Evol. 2016;6(9):3040–55. doi: 10.1002/ece3.2104 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Ceaușu S, Leclère D, Newbold T. Geography and availability of natural habitat determine whether cropland intensification or expansion is more detrimental to biodiversity. Nat Ecol Evol. 2025;9(6):993–1008. doi: 10.1038/s41559-025-02691-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Hurtt GC, Chini LP, Frolking S, Betts RA, Feddema J, Fischer G, et al. Harmonization of land-use scenarios for the period 1500–2100: 600 years of global gridded annual land-use transitions, wood harvest, and resulting secondary lands. Clim Change. 2011;109: 117. doi: 10.1007/s10584-011-0153-2 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Rigby RA, Stasinopoulos DM, Akantziliotou C. A framework for modelling overdispersed count data, including the Poisson-shifted generalized inverse Gaussian distribution. Comput Stat Data Anal. 2008;53(2):381–93. doi: 10.1016/j.csda.2008.07.043 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Zuur AF, Ieno EN, Walker N, Saveliev AA, Smith GM. Mixed effects models and extensions in ecology with R. Springer New York. 2009. doi: 10.1007/978-0-387-87458-6 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 74.R Core Team R. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. 2013. [Google Scholar]
  • 75.Bates D, Mächler M, Bolker B, Walker S. Fitting linear mixed-effects models Usinglme4. J Stat Soft. 2015;67(1). doi: 10.18637/jss.v067.i01 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 76.Hijmans RJ, Van Etten J, Mattiuzzi M, Sumner M, Greenberg JA, Lamigueiro OP. Raster package in R. 2013. [Google Scholar]
  • 77.Newbold T. Predicts functions: functions for reading and processing the PREDICTS data. R package version. 2018. 45–50.
  • 78.Habel JC, Segerer A, Ulrich W, Torchyk O, Weisser WW, Schmitt T. Butterfly community shifts over two centuries. Conserv Biol. 2016;30(4):754–62. doi: 10.1111/cobi.12656 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 79.Roth T, Kohli L, Rihm B, Meier R, Amrhein V. Negative effects of nitrogen deposition on Swiss butterflies. Conserv Biol. 2021;35(6):1766–76. doi: 10.1111/cobi.13744 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 80.Vogels JJ, Verberk WCEP, Lamers LPM, Siepel H. Can changes in soil biochemistry and plant stoichiometry explain loss of animal diversity of heathlands?. Biol Conserv. 2017;212:432–47. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2016.08.039 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 81.Bobbink R, Hicks K, Galloway J, Spranger T, Alkemade R, Ashmore M, et al. Global assessment of nitrogen deposition effects on terrestrial plant diversity: a synthesis. Ecol Appl. 2010;20(1):30–59. doi: 10.1890/08-1140.1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 82.Matson P, Lohse KA, Hall SJ. The globalization of nitrogen deposition: consequences for terrestrial ecosystems. Ambio. 2002;31(2):113–9. doi: 10.1579/0044-7447-31.2.113 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 83.Perring MP, Bernhardt-Römermann M, Baeten L, Midolo G, Blondeel H, Depauw L, et al. Global environmental change effects on plant community composition trajectories depend upon management legacies. Glob Chang Biol. 2018;24(4):1722–40. doi: 10.1111/gcb.14030 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 84.Stevens CJ, Manning P, van den Berg LJL, de Graaf MCC, Wamelink GWW, Boxman AW, et al. Ecosystem responses to reduced and oxidised nitrogen inputs in European terrestrial habitats. Environ Pollut. 2011;159(3):665–76. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2010.12.008 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 85.Bobbink R, Hornung M, Roelofs JGM. The effects of air‐borne nitrogen pollutants on species diversity in natural and semi‐natural European vegetation. J Ecol. 1998;86(5):717–38. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2745.1998.8650717.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 86.Guo JH, Liu XJ, Zhang Y, Shen JL, Han WX, Zhang WF, et al. Significant acidification in major Chinese croplands. Science. 2010;327(5968):1008–10. doi: 10.1126/science.1182570 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 87.Sutton MA, Milford C, Dragosits U, Place CJ, Singles RJ, Smith RI, et al. Dispersion, deposition and impacts of atmospheric ammonia: quantifying local budgets and spatial variability. Environ Pollut. 1998;102(1):349–61. doi: 10.1016/s0269-7491(98)80054-7 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 88.Sirami C, Gross N, Baillod AB, Bertrand C, Carrié R, Hass A, et al. Increasing crop heterogeneity enhances multitrophic diversity across agricultural regions. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2019;116(33):16442–7. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1906419116 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 89.Stevens CJ, Dise NB, Mountford JO, Gowing DJ. Impact of nitrogen deposition on the species richness of grasslands. Science. 2004;303(5665):1876–9. doi: 10.1126/science.1094678 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 90.Davidson EA, David MB, Galloway JN, Goodale CL, Haeuber R, Harrison JA. Excess nitrogen in the U.S. environment: trends, risks, and solutions. Issues Ecol. 2012. [Google Scholar]
  • 91.Lind EM, La Pierre KJ, Seabloom EW, Alberti J, Iribarne O, Firn J, et al. Increased grassland arthropod production with mammalian herbivory and eutrophication: a test of mediation pathways. Ecology. 2017;98(12):3022–33. doi: 10.1002/ecy.2029 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 92.La Pierre KJ, Smith MD. Soil nutrient additions increase invertebrate herbivore abundances, but not herbivory, across three grassland systems. Oecologia. 2016;180(2):485–97. doi: 10.1007/s00442-015-3471-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 93.Nessel MP, Konnovitch T, Romero GQ, González AL. Nitrogen and phosphorus enrichment cause declines in invertebrate populations: a global meta-analysis. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 2021;96(6):2617–37. doi: 10.1111/brv.12771 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 94.Theobald MR, Milford C, Hargreaves KJ, Sheppard LJ, Nemitz E, Tang YS, et al. Potential for ammonia recapture by farm woodlands: design and application of a new experimental facility. ScientificWorldJournal. 2001;1 Suppl 2:791–801. doi: 10.1100/tsw.2001.338 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 95.Deng O, Zhang S, Deng L, Lan T, Luo L, Gao X, et al. Atmospheric dry nitrogen deposition and its relationship with local land use in a high nitrogen deposition region. Atmos Environ. 2019;203:114–20. doi: 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2018.12.037 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 96.Sutton M, Dragosits U, Theobald M, McDonald A, Nemitz E, Blyth J. The role of trees in landscape planning to reduce the impacts of atmospheric ammonia deposition. 2004. Available from: https://www.cabidigitallibrary.org/doi/full/10.5555/20053052286 [Google Scholar]
  • 97.Theobald M r, Milford C, Hargreaves KJ, Sheppard LJ, Nemitz E, Tang YS. AMBER: Ammonia mitigation by enhanced recapture. impact of vegetation and/or other on-farm features on net ammonia emissions from livestock farms. Defra UK. 2004. [Google Scholar]
  • 98.Shao Y, Liu T, Eisenhauer N, Zhang W, Wang X, Xiong Y, et al. Plants mitigate detrimental nitrogen deposition effects on soil biodiversity. Soil Biol Biochem. 2018;127:178–86. doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2018.09.022 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 99.Poggio SL, Chaneton EJ, Ghersa CM. Landscape complexity differentially affects alpha, beta, and gamma diversities of plants occurring in fencerows and crop fields. Biol Conserv. 2010;143(11):2477–86. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2010.06.014 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 100.Rundlöf M, Smith HG. The effect of organic farming on butterfly diversity depends on landscape context. J Appl Ecol. 2006;43(6):1121–7. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2664.2006.01233.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 101.Balmford A, Green RE, Scharlemann JPW. Sparing land for nature: exploring the potential impact of changes in agricultural yield on the area needed for crop production. Glob Change Biol. 2005;11(10):1594–605. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2486.2005.001035.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 102.Hendershot JN, Smith JR, Anderson CB, Letten AD, Frishkoff LO, Zook JR, et al. Intensive farming drives long-term shifts in avian community composition. Nature. 2020;579(7799):393–6. doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2090-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 103.Shaffer ML, Scott JM, Casey F. Noah’s options: initial cost estimates of a national system of habitat conservation areas in the United States. BioScience. 2002;52(5):439. doi: 10.1641/0006-3568(2002)052[0439:nsoice]2.0.co;2 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 104.Tilman D, Clark M, Williams DR, Kimmel K, Polasky S, Packer C. Future threats to biodiversity and pathways to their prevention. Nature. 2017;546(7656):73–81. doi: 10.1038/nature22900 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 105.Mcclean CJ, van den Berg LJL, Ashmore MR, Preston CD. Atmospheric nitrogen deposition explains patterns of plant species loss. Glob Change Biol. 2011;17(9):2882–92. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2486.2011.02462.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 106.Smart SM, Ashmore MR, Hornung M, Scott WA, Fowler DA, Dragosits U, et al. Detecting the signal of atmospheric n deposition in recent national-scale vegetation change across Britain. Water Air Soil Pollut: Focus. 2004;4(6):269–78. doi: 10.1007/s11267-004-3037-x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 107.Midolo G, Alkemade R, Schipper AM, Benítez‐López A, Perring MP, De Vries W. Impacts of nitrogen addition on plant species richness and abundance: a global meta‐analysis. Global Ecol Biogeogr. 2018;28(3):398–413. doi: 10.1111/geb.12856 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 108.Jones L, Stevens C, Rowe EC, Payne R, Caporn SJM, Evans CD, et al. Can on-site management mitigate nitrogen deposition impacts in non-wooded habitats?. Biol Conserv. 2017;212:464–75. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2016.06.012 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 109.Plassmann K, Jones MLM, Edwards‐Jones G. Effects of long‐term grazing management on sand dune vegetation of high conservation interest. Appl Veget Sci. 2010;13(1):100–12. doi: 10.1111/j.1654-109x.2009.01052.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 110.Humbert J-Y, Ghazoul J, Walter T. Meadow harvesting techniques and their impacts on field fauna. Agric EcosystEnviron. 2009;130(1–2):1–8. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2008.11.014 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 111.Stevens C, Jones L, Rowe E, Dale S, Hall J, Payne R. Review of the effectiveness of on-site habitat management to reduce atmospheric nitrogen deposition impacts on terrestrial habitats. 2013. Available from: https://nora.nerc.ac.uk/id/eprint/510481/ [Google Scholar]
  • 112.Galloway JN, Dentener FJ, Capone DG, Boyer EW, Howarth RW, Seitzinger SP, et al. Nitrogen cycles: past, present, and future. Biogeochemistry. 2004;70(2):153–226. doi: 10.1007/s10533-004-0370-0 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 113.van der Plas F, Hautier Y, Ceulemans T, Alard D, Bobbink R, Diekmann M, et al. Atmospheric nitrogen deposition is related to plant biodiversity loss at multiple spatial scales. Glob Chang Biol. 2024;30(8):e17445. doi: 10.1111/gcb.17445 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 114.Millard J, Outhwaite CL, Kinnersley R, Freeman R, Gregory RD, Adedoja O, et al. Global effects of land-use intensity on local pollinator biodiversity. Nat Commun. 2021;12(1):2902. doi: 10.1038/s41467-021-23228-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 115.Bommarco R, Kleijn D, Potts SG. Ecological intensification: harnessing ecosystem services for food security. Trends Ecol Evol. 2013;28(4):230–8. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2012.10.012 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 116.Kleijn D, Rundlöf M, Scheper J, Smith HG, Tscharntke T. Does conservation on farmland contribute to halting the biodiversity decline?. Trends Ecol Evol. 2011;26(9):474–81. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2011.05.009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Roland G Roberts

Dear Dr Liu,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript entitled "Landscape composition mediates global losses in arthropod diversity caused by atmospheric nitrogen deposition" for consideration as a Research Article by PLOS Biology.

Your manuscript has now been evaluated by the PLOS Biology editorial staff, as well as by an academic editor with relevant expertise, and I'm writing to let you know that we would like to send your submission out for external peer review.

However, before we can send your manuscript to reviewers, we need you to complete your submission by providing the metadata that is required for full assessment. To this end, please login to Editorial Manager where you will find the paper in the 'Submissions Needing Revisions' folder on your homepage. Please click 'Revise Submission' from the Action Links and complete all additional questions in the submission questionnaire.

Once your full submission is complete, your paper will undergo a series of checks in preparation for peer review. After your manuscript has passed the checks it will be sent out for review. To provide the metadata for your submission, please Login to Editorial Manager (https://www.editorialmanager.com/pbiology) within two working days, i.e. by Mar 25 2025 11:59PM.

If your manuscript has been previously peer-reviewed at another journal, PLOS Biology is willing to work with those reviews in order to avoid re-starting the process. Submission of the previous reviews is entirely optional and our ability to use them effectively will depend on the willingness of the previous journal to confirm the content of the reports and share the reviewer identities. Please note that we reserve the right to invite additional reviewers if we consider that additional/independent reviewers are needed, although we aim to avoid this as far as possible. In our experience, working with previous reviews does save time.

If you would like us to consider previous reviewer reports, please edit your cover letter to let us know and include the name of the journal where the work was previously considered and the manuscript ID it was given. In addition, please upload a response to the reviews as a 'Prior Peer Review' file type, which should include the reports in full and a point-by-point reply detailing how you have or plan to address the reviewers' concerns.

During the process of completing your manuscript submission, you will be invited to opt-in to posting your pre-review manuscript as a bioRxiv preprint. Visit http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/s/preprints for full details. If you consent to posting your current manuscript as a preprint, please upload a single Preprint PDF.

Feel free to email us at plosbiology@plos.org if you have any queries relating to your submission.

Kind regards,

Roli Roberts

Roland Roberts, PhD

Senior Editor

PLOS Biology

rroberts@plos.org

Decision Letter 1

Roland G Roberts

Dear Dr Liu,

Thank you for your patience while your manuscript "Landscape composition mediates global losses in arthropod diversity caused by atmospheric nitrogen deposition" went through peer-review at PLOS Biology. Your manuscript has now been evaluated by the PLOS Biology editors, an Academic Editor with relevant expertise, and by several independent reviewers.

You'll see that reviewer #1 is positive, but flags two apparent inconsistencies which will require further discussion. Reviewer #2 is also positive but has some more substantial concerns; these include the framing of the work (point 1) and the Discussion (points 4 and 5), but also may involve further analyses (points 2 and 3). S/he has a long list of textual issues. Reviewer #3 is very positive, and most of his/her comments relate to the structure and content of the Intro and Discussion (there are one or two potential analyses).

In light of the reviews, which you will find at the end of this email, we are pleased to offer you the opportunity to address the comments from the reviewers in a revision that we anticipate should not take you very long. We will then assess your revised manuscript and your response to the reviewers' comments with our Academic Editor aiming to avoid further rounds of peer-review, although we might need to consult with the reviewers, depending on the nature of the revisions.

In addition to these revisions, you will need to complete some formatting changes, which you will receive in a follow up email. A member of our team will be in touch with a set of requests shortly.

We expect to receive your revised manuscript within 1 month. Please email us (plosbiology@plos.org) if you have any questions or concerns, or would like to request an extension.

At this stage, your manuscript remains formally under active consideration at our journal; please notify us by email if you do not intend to submit a revision so that we withdraw the manuscript.

**IMPORTANT - SUBMITTING YOUR REVISION**

Your revisions should address the specific points made by each reviewer. Please submit the following files along with your revised manuscript:

1. A 'Response to Reviewers' file - this should detail your responses to the editorial requests, present a point-by-point response to all of the reviewers' comments, and indicate the changes made to the manuscript.

*NOTE: In your point-by-point response to the reviewers, please provide the full context of each review. Do not selectively quote paragraphs or sentences to reply to. The entire set of reviewer comments should be present in full and each specific point should be responded to individually.

You should also cite any additional relevant literature that has been published since the original submission and mention any additional citations in your response.

2. In addition to a clean copy of the manuscript, please also upload a 'track-changes' version of your manuscript that specifies the edits made. This should be uploaded as a "Revised Article with Changes Highlighted " file type.

*Resubmission Checklist*

When you are ready to resubmit your revised manuscript, please refer to this resubmission checklist: https://plos.io/Biology_Checklist

To submit a revised version of your manuscript, please go to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pbiology/ and log in as an Author. Click the link labelled 'Submissions Needing Revision' where you will find your submission record.

Please make sure to read the following important policies and guidelines while preparing your revision:

*Published Peer Review*

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out. Please see here for more details:

https://blogs.plos.org/plos/2019/05/plos-journals-now-open-for-published-peer-review/

*PLOS Data Policy*

Please note that as a condition of publication PLOS' data policy (http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/s/data-availability) requires that you make available all data used to draw the conclusions arrived at in your manuscript. If you have not already done so, you must include any data used in your manuscript either in appropriate repositories, within the body of the manuscript, or as supporting information (N.B. this includes any numerical values that were used to generate graphs, histograms etc.). For an example see here: http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1001908#s5

*Blot and Gel Data Policy*

We require the original, uncropped and minimally adjusted images supporting all blot and gel results reported in an article's figures or Supporting Information files. We will require these files before a manuscript can be accepted so please prepare them now, if you have not already uploaded them. Please carefully read our guidelines for how to prepare and upload this data: https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/s/figures#loc-blot-and-gel-reporting-requirements

*Protocols deposition*

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols

Thank you again for your submission to our journal. We hope that our editorial process has been constructive thus far, and we welcome your feedback at any time. Please don't hesitate to contact us if you have any questions or comments.

Sincerely,

Roli Roberts

Roland Roberts, PhD

Senior Editor

PLOS Biology

rroberts@plos.org

----------------------------------------------------------------

REVIEWERS' COMMENTS:

Reviewer #1:

Dear Authors, dear Editor,

In this study, the authors inferred the effects of nitrogen (N) deposition on arthropod diversity by integrating biodiversity data from the PREDICTS database with global N deposition and land cover information. The findings reveal that N deposition negatively impacts arthropod biodiversity, with significant reductions in species richness and abundance, particularly in less anthropogenically modified landscapes.

Thank you for the opportunity to review this interesting study. In my opinion, it is a very well conducted study with clearly described methods and results. The findings are very intresting and support previous studies that demonstrate negative effects of N deposition not only on plants but also on other species groups. I only have few comments:

Main comments

- Based on the presented results, the authors conclude that the negative effect of N deposition can be buffered by a large proportion of semi-natural and natural habitats (SNH) in the surrounding area (see results from line 396). This is an important finding. However, when examining Fig. 3, it appears that high N deposition in areas with a high proportion of SNH even has a positive effect (not just a buffering effect). It is unclear to me whether these are actual effects or could be artefacts. Nevertheless, this is a point that should be discussed in more depth.

- The authors find that the effect of nitrogen deposition is most pronounced in habitats with the least anthropogenic modifications (l. 26-27), and at the same time, an increase in the proportion of natural habitat reduces the negative effect of nitrogen deposition (l. 27-29). To me, this sounded like a contradiction, particularly when first reading the abstract. It should be emphasised more strongly that the former refers to the habitat at the study area, while the latter pertains to the proportion of natural habitat in the surrounding area.

Minor comments

- l. 25: slightly misleading as the N-deposition was not measured in the field at each site.

- l. 28: Add "increases in SNH proportion IN THE SURROUNDINGS reduced ..."

- l.47: Please explain why global-scale effects of N deposition require greater attention.

- l.165-167: The abundance was corrected for the sampling effort. However, such a correction does not appear to have been made for the species richness.

- l. 200: Should the N-deposition model be included as a factor in the statistical model?

- l. 201: Remove Tan et al. in the brackets

- l. 243-244: Check wording of the sentence.

- l. 340: The link does not seem to be working.

- l. 578: Please add a reference that N deposition is still rising globally.

Reviewer #2:

This article mainly address the how the landscape composition, especially the proportion of natural and semi-natural habitats (SNH), mediate the negative effects of nitrogen deposition on arthropod diversity at a global scale, and the main findings are that N deposition has negative effects on arthropod diversity, and such effect differ across land use types. The most impressive and interesting finding is that the presence and large proportion of SNH in the landscape could offset the negative effects of N deposition on arthropod diversity, which in my view is the novelty of the study. Based on such buffering effect, the authors propose the need to maintain a minimum proportion of natural and semi-natural habitats especially in agricultural landscape, from the perspective of biological conservation and thus the sustainability of ecosystem services. In my view, the strength of the paper lies in its global scale examination and its core finding of buffering effects of SNH for biodiversity loss due to N deposition. However, I still have some major concerns and many minor ones as listed below:

1. The differentiation and the comparison between the effects of reduced N and oxidized N seems a finer question compared to the major theme of the paper. Such differentiation and the comparison may more or less divert readers' attention from your most interesting and novel thematic finding. Especially, in the first scientific question, it come abruptly, as it seems that no backdrop for it was previously set.

2. I worry about the match between arthropod assemblage data and land use data, as the former spans 1984-2013, while the latter is from a single year, 2005. After all, the arthropod assemblages would change very quickly following land use conversion, which also happen very abruptly due to human interference.

3. Since you have used data of climate and soil for each site on a global scale, and these data must span a large range, so I am wondering why you did not analyze how the N deposition effect and/or SNH buffering effects were influenced by the climate/soil factors. For example, it is very probably that such effects may differ between dry and wet regions.

4. The Discussion section is not so well organized, that is, the contents are arranged not in a good logic, and there are quite some contents diverting from the main theme (such as line 556-558). As a consequence, the entire Discussion is not very cohesive. For example, line 432-444, this is about the comparison between the effects of reduced N and oxidized N, which is a finer question compared to the major theme of the paper, but such content was placed in the very beginning of specific discussion. If you maintain this content (please also see my first concern), please postpone it. Moreover, the subsequent part of this paragraph (line 444-459) is about the implication of your results for biodiversity conservation, which should be postponed to the end of Discussion or to a separate section named "Implications", together with other implications such as "conserving or expanding SNH" (line 531-541).

5. You devoted only one paragraph (line 503-521) to discuss the mechanisms of SNH buffering effects, which is in my view far from adequate, because this is your core and novel finding. I suggest to expand this part while briefing other parts especially those that seems too hypothetical or a bit distant from your main theme.

Other minor concerns:

1. I suggest the title be changed into "Landscape composition mediates the negative effects of nitrogen deposition on arthropod diveristy"

2. Line 25, delete "observed"

3. Line 26, for → across

4. Line 42, delete "rates"

5. Line 50, delete ", too"

6. Line 52, of arthropods, the world's most species-rich taxa, are therefore……

7. Line 62, at → for

8. Line 63, exist → coexist

9. Line 67, delete "in response to increased N deposition"

10. Line 68, insert "On the other hand"

11. Line 72, to → for

12. Line 75, delete "that", insert "and" before play

13. Line 80, put forward the comma after "and" to before it

14. Line 94-95, please delete this sentence, as this is another issue beyond this paper

15. Line 104, Consequence → Therefore

16. Line 107, delete "while also"

17. Line 111, insert "and" before challenging

18. Line 120, semi-natural/natural habitats, proportion of cropland → SNH and cropland

19. Line 123, "Differentiated by land-use type" → "Across land-use types"

20. Line 126, extent → proportion

21. Line 130, delete "furthermore"

22. Line 130, I don't understand this sentence, "most negative effect" is in comparison with the effects of oxidized N? what do you mean by "not least due to ……"

23. Line 131, the second hypothesis can be changed into "SNH can buffer the negative effect of N deposition on biodiversity"?

24. Line 153, delete "measures of"

25. Line 159, accounted for → encompassed

26. Line 166-167, it is not necessarily the linear relationship, but very probably the asymptote, like the species number vs. area curve.

27. Line 192, from → of

28. Line 202, value should be in singular form

29. Line 207, onto → into

30. Line 213, the semicolon should be comma

31. Line 220-221, can be changed into "we additionally compared the responses of arthropod diversity to the two types of N deposition separately"?

32. Line 226, better combine these two sentences, by insert ", and found that"

33. Line 232, "biodiversity" should be "land use"?

34. Line 235, MAT and MAP data of only one year 2010? Does it match with the land use data of 2005? And with arthropod data of 1984-2013?

35. Line 241, usage → use

36. Line 243, noted worth → noteworthy

37. Line 249, pH

38. Line 253, which four variables?

39. Line 263, based on their relationships

40. Line 270, percentage of

41. Line 276, oxidized and reduced

42. Line 279, to convert these → as to be converted

43. Line 285, with → into

44. Line 300, the interaction effect → its interactive effect

45. Line 366, Table S3 should be deleted?

46. Line 367, "ranked the second"? in terms of what? Is it possible for both the secondary vegetation and pasture to rank the second? By the way, please insert "of arthropod diversity" after "Negative responses"

47. Line 368, delete "diversity"

48. Line 370-371, the phase "as well as……" is wrongly used, in terms of syntax. How about the primary and secondary vegetation? It is not possible for them to suffer greatest loss as aforementioned pasture!

49. Line 373, compared to that in sites of primary vegetation

50. Line 376, more strong → stronger

51. Line 397-410, in this para, is the first sentence contradictory with the last sentence with respect to the buffering effect of SNH? Moreover, all the words "biodiversity" refer to diversity of arthropods? If so, please specify it as arthropod diversity. There do exist same problems in some other places of the MS.

52. Line 406-407, this is not a complete sentence!

53. Line 423, delete "has"

54. Line 426, delete "experiments data"

55. Line 429, furthermore → further

56. Line 436, uniquely liked to → due to

57. Line 438, delete "subsequently"

58. Lien 441, could → might

59. Line 442-43, delete "and" and "has",

60. Line 447, species richness! But do you mean plant species here, or arthropod species? Please specify!

61. Line 447-448, by grazing that can offset light limitation

62. Line 454, delete "extensive of"

63. Line 457-459, what are such measures?

64. Line 465-466, can be changed into: ", their biodiversity may show higher sensitivity to N deposition than plantation forest or pastures"

65. Line 468, "reduced edibility of plant resources"? why? Don't plants of higher N content have better edibility�

66. Line 470, semicolon → ", for instance,"

67. "per se" should be italicized

68. Line 471, high levels of exposure to N deposition and N application

69. Line 480, delete "direct"

70. Line 483, "but also plantation forests and pasture" → "and this also occurs to plantation forests and pasture"

71. Line 490, plant or arthropod species richness?

72. Line 493 could → can

73. Line 498, "providing a reduction in" → "that can shrink"

74. Line 503, delete "the"

75. Line 505, delete "coverage"

76. Line 506, "reduce" → "alleviate the"

77. Line 507, "removing" → "intercepting";

78. Line 513, "from" → "due to"

79. Line 514, "as N will not accumulate in the soil", why not?

80. Line 516, "contributes positively towards" → benefit

81. Line 520, "address" → "counteract"

82. Line 521, "N deposition exerts on biodiversity" → "of N deposition on biodiversity"

83. Line 528, "between" → "of"

84. Line 529, "and" → "including"

85. Line 542, delete "furthermore"

86. Line 548, regardless of scales considered

87. Line 556-558, delete this sentence

88. Line 559-561, The prospect for future research should be focused on those especially at relevant scale as the present study, or with its combining with manipulative experiments to uncover the underlying mechanisms.

89. Line 569, being → was

90. Line 571, "accounting for" → "identifying"

91. Line 587, "in view of" → "under the context of"

Reviewer #3:

[identifies himself as David Wagner; IMPORTANT: please see attached file]

This is a much-needed look at the impacts of nitrogen inputs on terrestrial arthropod diversity. Figures are fine. The rigor of the study is reflected in the four supplementary documents. The results make sense, are novel, important, consistent with reports from other studies, and are of global relevance. I suspect that the paper will be highly cited.

I am not sufficiently knowledgeable about the statistical methods to evaluate aspects of the study. Pleased to see that Fan et al. also took mean annual temperature, mean annual precipitation, and soil PH into account (and used variance inflation factors to check for collinearity). Likewise, was pleased that the team analyzed organic oxides separately from reduced nitrogen cmpds.

Most of my comments and suggestions are added to a pdf of the manuscript which I am returning.

The Discussion struck me as a bit long and scattershot. Consider shortening and perhaps add a few subsections or header words that organize key points so that readers can find relevant content easily given that the Discussion touches on many subjects.

The Introduction and or Discussion need to include text that is broad in scope about how N inputs change the basic ecology of ecosystems: primary productivity, species composition, vegetation structure, litter load, duff characteristics, fire, and perhaps most fundamentally in terrestrial ecosystems, the soil properties (a possible reference https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0038071722003443), far beyond just pH. As such nitrogen input can and will foundationally trigger changes in the composition of a tract's microfauna, flora, and fauna. And from there tell reader that the Discussion can/will only treat a few examples of such, e.g., some of the effects that have been well studied/documented. This approach would help fix the scattershot feeling I got from reading the Discussion.

Related to the above. Be a bit more even-handed about discussing the consequences of the changes. Not all changes are inherently bad--ecological changes produce losers and winner. For example, it is not only the pests that benefit from N input as implied by the current wording. Likely reckon that at least few imperiled taxa might also do better in a situation with more nitrogen.

The Discussion would benefit from pointing out the there are many terrestrial and freshwater systems globally that are especially N-limited, where atmospheric and dry deposition from the use of the burning of fossil fuels represents an extremely threat to the autochthonous biodiversity. The organisms are specially adapted to survive in such situations, and many are easily displaced once the soils are changed by N inputs…even in wildlands, far away from agriculture and anthropogenic point sources.

It is important to emphasize the need for more experimental studies. This could be a separate paragraph; not be handled as just a sentence or two embedded in a larger paragraph.

Small matters:

* The land use types are capitalized in some places but not others. Edit for uniformity. In this manuscript capitalization might be best.

* Text sometimes equates species richness with biodiversity. That's a little problematic and the authors would be well served by just sticking to using richness. If they are to regard them as synonyms, they should be explicit that they plan to do such somewhere.

Lines 40-41: atmospheric deposition as the inclusive term is a misnomer. Come up with another term for pollution that includes agricultural inputs. Maybe anthropogenic inputs, anthropogenic augmentation, or any other word set that less problematically includes atmospheric deposition + fertilizer application(s).

Lines 64 to 68: might consider citing Wagner, D. L. (2020) [Insect declines in the Anthropocene. Ann. Rev. Entomol. 65: 457-480] here/elsewhere as N pollution received its own subsection in the review. (Text reproduced below.) (Being a biosystematist with training in botany and a rare species biologist, nitrogen pollution scares the pudding out me, and makes me appreciate the gravity of this study.)

Nitrification

The release of atmospheric nitrites from the burning of fossil fuels has the potential to change global ecology and ignite extinction cascades (121, 134). Nitrogen is often a limiting nutrient in terrestrial, freshwater, and marine systems. Many of the world's most speciose and specialized plant communities occur in nitrogen-poor soils (158). In a now-classic study, the generous addition of nitrogen to a pasture at the Rothamsted Experimental Station (in the United Kingdom) resulted in a 10-fold loss of plant richness over the course of the ensuing century (77).

The wet or dry deposition of atmospheric nitrogen to previously nitrogen-limited communities (e.g., bogs, heathlands, sand-based communities, pine barrens, oligotrophic grasslands, and many freshwater ecosystems) will change their fundamental ecology by altering edaphic conditions, nutrient cycling, species interactions and composition, and more. Butterfly declines in northern Europe have been linked to nitrogen deposition, particularly that associated with oligotrophic grasslands (56a, 57, 114).

Soil chemistry is a primary determinant of plant distributions—nitrogen deposition from fossil fuel consumption has the potential to trigger changes in plant communities worldwide. As plant abundance and species composition change, so will the associated entomofaunas. Approximately half of all described insects are plant feeders, and approximately 90% of these are thought to be dietarily specialized herbivores that depend upon just a small suite of closely related species (37, 127, 148). The potential consequences of atmospheric nitrogen deposition are grave and worthy of greater attention.

Line 96: Agriculture (agricultural intensification) is identified as one of the top three drivers of insects declines in Wagner (2020), Wagner et al. (2021), and Raven and Wagner (2021). None of these need be cited…just sayin'.

Lines 219-220: The effects of the two forms of N (input) do differ—not may differ.

Lines 243-247: In parts of the USA more fertilizer is deployed on lawns than in croplands! And still further inputs come from impervious surfaces in towns and cities. Not sure these would affect the results as most of the study sites would be outside such areas. But it might be a good idea to analyze the sites within vs away from suburbia and cities, separately, at some point. I am not suggesting that this be done at this time, unless authors were interested in doing so.

Line 429: There are over 10 million species of insects--why is that a small selection of taxa? Also, as noted above, the issue of nitrogen as a driver is addressed in more detail in Wagner (2020). Wagner et al. (2021) might be deleted here--it would be more relevant to line 79.

Lines 438-439: "subsequently potentially disrupting arthropod trophic networks." This is almost a truism. Every scenario, changes foodwebs: any inputs, withdrawals, time, weather, etc. Somehow this implies to me that these systems are in some stable state that is being disrupted. Everything changes foodwebs; they are inherently dynamic, especially in early successional systems. Consider rephrasing to put something besides the obvious into the statement.

Lines 444-459: a bit wordy and scattered--consider tightening this text up...

Line 467-468: structural changes can increase or decrease insect diversity. The text is too non-specific. Rework text. Tighten up.

Lines 472-472: As written, the sentence is a truism. Of course, soil pH influences biodiversity… tightened up.

Lines 508-511: Mineralization is not mentioned in the manuscript. This is a exceedingly important way a grassland, woodland, or forest can remove organic nitrogen from the landscape, and needs to be mentioned somewhere.

Lines 523-524: Straw man as written. Agencies/NGO's/governments don't focus on just one thing. Conservation biologists understand these matters to a greater degree than implied here, and that insecticides, herbicides, fungicides, invasive species, other forms of pollution, etc. are all in play.

Line 524: Estimation of rates is another matter entirely and does not (so much) depend on one's beliefs. Perhaps rewrite sentence to express that you feel this important stressor is underappreciated and understudied.

Question: Might there be latitudinal gradients in fertilizer use (greater use in temperate areas) and in species richness. To what extent are these intertangled or not in this study?

As noted above, the Discussion struck me as a tad long, places where adjacent sentences could be combined, authors could dial back on indefinite pronouns, and reword sentences that read as truisms. Polish up a bit to deliver crisp, tight takeaways that readers can digest.

The study is a "satellite's view" of nitrogen deposition and its impacts on insect diversity and abundance. The authors make a pitch for the need of experimental work, which is much needed. But I wonder if there shouldn't also be pitch for studies that fit in between these two scales. For example, local studies that examine insect diversity across nitrogen gradients—a finer-grained approach. Might the authors in their Discussion/Conclusion make a plea for such.

In sum, I view this an especially worth study of great relevance to the biodiversity crisis and the matter of insect decline, and I am much in favor of it going forward. Nearly, all my suggestions are merely that and need not be embraced.

Attachment

Submitted filename: PBIOLOGY-D-25-00837_R1_reviewer3.pdf

pbio.3003285.s023.pdf (1.5MB, pdf)

Decision Letter 2

Roland G Roberts

Dear Dr Liu,

Thank you for your patience while we considered your revised manuscript "Landscape composition mediates negative effects of nitrogen deposition on arthropod diversity" for publication as a Short Reports at PLOS Biology. This revised version of your manuscript has been evaluated by the PLOS Biology editors and the Academic Editor.

Based on our Academic Editor's assessment of your revision, we are likely to accept this manuscript for publication, provided you satisfactorily address the following queries from the AE, data and other policy-related requests.

IMPORTANT - Please attend to the following:

a) Please change your Title to something that is more accessible, declarative, and more closely aligned with the Abstract. We suggest: "Arthropod biodiversity loss from nitrogen deposition is buffered by natual and semi-natural habitats"

b) Please address the remaining requests from the Academic Editor (see the foot of this email). Specifically, the AE wants you to incorporate two elements of your rebuttal into the main paper. Also the AE and I were both puzzled as to why Figures S4C and S5C differ between the R1 and R2 versions of the manuscript; please explain.

c) Please address my Data Policy requests below; specifically, we need you to supply the numerical values underlying Figs 1, 2AB, 3ABCDEABCDE, S1, S2, S3, S4ABCD, 5ABCD, either as a supplementary data file or as a permanent DOI’d deposition. I note that you already have an associated Figshare deposition (DOI:10.6084/m9.figshare.29109170), but this is currently not accessible. Please make it accessible or send me a reviewer link so that I can check its compliance with our policy.

d) Please cite the location of the data clearly in all relevant main and supplementary Figure legends, e.g. “The data underlying this Figure can be found in S1 Data” or “The data underlying this Figure can be found in DOI:10.6084/m9.figshare.29109170"

e) I note that you mention two of the reviewers (“David Wagner and two anonymous reviewers”) in the Acknowledgements. While we appreciate the sentiment, this is against PLOS policy, so please could you remove this?

f) Please make any custom code available, either as a supplementary file or as part of your Figshare data deposition.

As you address these items, please take this last chance to review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the cover letter that accompanies your revised manuscript.

In addition to these revisions, you will need to complete some formatting changes, which you will receive in a follow up email. A member of our team will be in touch with a set of requests shortly.

We expect to receive your revised manuscript within two weeks.

To submit your revision, please go to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pbiology/ and log in as an Author. Click the link labelled 'Submissions Needing Revision' to find your submission record. Your revised submission must include the following:

- a cover letter that should detail your responses to any editorial requests, if applicable, and whether changes have been made to the reference list

- a Response to Reviewers file that provides a detailed response to the reviewers' comments (if applicable, if not applicable please do not delete your existing 'Response to Reviewers' file.)

- a track-changes file indicating any changes that you have made to the manuscript.

NOTE: If Supporting Information files are included with your article, note that these are not copyedited and will be published as they are submitted. Please ensure that these files are legible and of high quality (at least 300 dpi) in an easily accessible file format. For this reason, please be aware that any references listed in an SI file will not be indexed. For more information, see our Supporting Information guidelines:

https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/s/supporting-information

*Published Peer Review History*

Please note that you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out. Please see here for more details:

https://plos.org/published-peer-review-history/

*Press*

Should you, your institution's press office or the journal office choose to press release your paper, please ensure you have opted out of Early Article Posting on the submission form. We ask that you notify us as soon as possible if you or your institution is planning to press release the article.

*Protocols deposition*

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols

Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions.

Sincerely,

Roli Roberts

Roland Roberts, PhD

Senior Editor

rroberts@plos.org

PLOS Biology

------------------------------------------------------------------------

DATA POLICY:

You may be aware of the PLOS Data Policy, which requires that all data be made available without restriction: http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/s/data-availability. For more information, please also see this editorial: http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1001797

Note that we do not require all raw data. Rather, we ask that all individual quantitative observations that underlie the data summarized in the figures and results of your paper be made available in one of the following forms:

1) Supplementary files (e.g., excel). Please ensure that all data files are uploaded as 'Supporting Information' and are invariably referred to (in the manuscript, figure legends, and the Description field when uploading your files) using the following format verbatim: S1 Data, S2 Data, etc. Multiple panels of a single or even several figures can be included as multiple sheets in one excel file that is saved using exactly the following convention: S1_Data.xlsx (using an underscore).

2) Deposition in a publicly available repository. Please also provide the accession code or a reviewer link so that we may view your data before publication.

Regardless of the method selected, please ensure that you provide the individual numerical values that underlie the summary data displayed in the following figure panels as they are essential for readers to assess your analysis and to reproduce it: Figs 1, 2AB, 3ABCDEABCDE, S1, S2, S3, S4ABCD, 5ABCD. NOTE: the numerical data provided should include all replicates AND the way in which the plotted mean and errors were derived (it should not present only the mean/average values).

IMPORTANT: Please also ensure that figure legends in your manuscript include information on where the underlying data can be found, and ensure your supplemental data file/s has a legend.

Please ensure that your Data Statement in the submission system accurately describes where your data can be found.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

CODE POLICY

Per journal policy, if you have generated any custom code during the course of this investigation, please make it available without restrictions. Please ensure that the code is sufficiently well documented and reusable, and that your Data Statement in the Editorial Manager submission system accurately describes where your code can be found.

Please note that we cannot accept sole deposition of code in GitHub, as this could be changed after publication. However, you can archive this version of your publicly available GitHub code to Zenodo. Once you do this, it will generate a DOI number, which you will need to provide in the Data Accessibility Statement (you are welcome to also provide the GitHub access information). See the process for doing this here: https://docs.github.com/en/repositories/archiving-a-github-repository/referencing-and-citing-content

------------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMENTS FROM THE ACADEMIC EDITOR:

I have looked over the authors' responses. I agree that they have been quite serious in their responses to the host of requests from the reviewers.

However, there are a few areas where they could be more upfront in the main text, particularly where they have been asked to defend their use of the data and consider a re-analysis but have not. For the former, they have repeatedly cited the Nature paper, that a few of their co-authors are on, as a reason for the temporal mismatch in terms of the data (R1 1.200). I would like them to include the rationale in the main text. For the latter, the authors often raised the potential issue of (un)interpretability if the model has too many higher-order interactions and is too complex as a reason for not re-analyzing (R2 2 and 3). They would have to directly mention this in the main text as well. Lastly, I am as puzzled as you are about Figure S4C and S5C so they would need to explain why the two figures were replaced.

Decision Letter 3

Roland G Roberts

Dear Dr Liu,

Thank you for the submission of your revised Short Report "Arthropod biodiversity loss from nitrogen deposition is buffered by natural and semi-natural habitats" for publication in PLOS Biology. On behalf of my colleagues and the Academic Editor, Tien Ming Lee, I'm pleased to say that we can in principle accept your manuscript for publication, provided you address any remaining formatting and reporting issues. These will be detailed in an email you should receive within 2-3 business days from our colleagues in the journal operations team; no action is required from you until then. Please note that we will not be able to formally accept your manuscript and schedule it for publication until you have completed any requested changes.

Please take a minute to log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pbiology/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information to ensure an efficient production process.

PRESS: We frequently collaborate with press offices. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximise its impact. If the press office is planning to promote your findings, we would be grateful if they could coordinate with biologypress@plos.org. If you have previously opted in to the early version process, we ask that you notify us immediately of any press plans so that we may opt out on your behalf.

We also ask that you take this opportunity to read our Embargo Policy regarding the discussion, promotion and media coverage of work that is yet to be published by PLOS. As your manuscript is not yet published, it is bound by the conditions of our Embargo Policy. Please be aware that this policy is in place both to ensure that any press coverage of your article is fully substantiated and to provide a direct link between such coverage and the published work. For full details of our Embargo Policy, please visit http://www.plos.org/about/media-inquiries/embargo-policy/.

Thank you again for choosing PLOS Biology for publication and supporting Open Access publishing. We look forward to publishing your study. 

Sincerely, 

Roli Roberts

Roland G Roberts, PhD, PhD

Senior Editor

PLOS Biology

rroberts@plos.org

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Fig. Distribution of oxidized nitrogen deposition (NOy) and reduced nitrogen deposition (NHx) globally.

    N deposition values were loge-transformed, with oxidized N deposition ranging from 0.7 mg N m−2 yr−1 to 3220.6 mg N m−2 yr−1, reduced nitrogen deposition ranging from 0.0 mg N m−2 yr−1 to 6576.8 mg N m−2 yr−1. The outline map is based on the Natural Earth (http://www.naturalearthdata.com/about/terms-of-use/), which is published under a CC-BY 4.0 license. The data underlying this figure can be found in link: https://thredds.met.no/thredds/catalog/data/EMEP/Articles_data/Schwede_etal_Ndep_2018/catalog.html.

    (DOCX)

    pbio.3003285.s001.docx (1.2MB, docx)
    S2 Fig. Distribution of N deposition sampling sites in Europe.

    The outline map is based on the Natural Earth (http://www.naturalearthdata.com/about/terms-of-use/), which is published under a CC-BY 4.0 license. The data underlying this figure can be found in https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.29109170.

    (DOCX)

    pbio.3003285.s002.docx (473.2KB, docx)
    S3 Fig. The effects of the total N deposition interact with land use on Arthropods Chao estimated species richness.

    Values represent the percentage difference compared with Primary vegetation with the 2.5th percentile value of total N deposition among sampled sites. The lines with different colors represent the median predicted value for each land-use type, with shaded areas representing the 95% confidence intervals. The results are predicted across 95% of the range of N deposition values for each land-use type. The number of sites were: Primary vegetation, Nsite = 1,094; Secondary vegetation, Nsite = 1,136; Cropland, Nsite = 1,285; Pasture, Nsite = 989; Plantation forest, Nsite = 277. The N deposition range used for plotting covers from 2.5% to 97.5% of sampled sites for each of the land-use types included in the model: 109.4–2326.3 mg N m−2 yr−1. The data underlying this figure can be found in https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.29109170.

    (DOCX)

    pbio.3003285.s003.docx (70.8KB, docx)
    S4 Fig. Model checks for the final species richness model obtained through backward stepwise selection for the study.

    A, fitted versus residuals plot to check for constant variance across the range of fitted values. B is Normal QQ-plot to check for a normal distribution of residuals. C is distribution of P-values from sets of Moran’s I test for spatial autocorrelation in the residuals for each study. Red line represents a P-value of 0.05. The left of red line represents the studies with significant spatial autocorrelation. D is observed values versus fitted values. The data underlying this figure can be found in https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.29109170.

    (DOCX)

    pbio.3003285.s004.docx (31.1KB, docx)
    S5 Fig. Model checks for the final total abundance model obtained through backward stepwise selection for the study.

    A, fitted versus residuals plot to check for constant variance across the range of fitted values. B is Normal QQ-plot to check for a normal distribution of residuals. C is distribution of P-values from sets of Moran’s I test for spatial autocorrelation in the residuals for each study. Red line represents a P-value of 0.05. The left of red line represents the studies with significant spatial autocorrelation. D is observed values versus fitted values. The data underlying this figure can be found in https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.29109170.

    (DOCX)

    pbio.3003285.s005.docx (37.7KB, docx)
    S1 Table. likelihood test result for species richness model.

    (DOCX)

    pbio.3003285.s006.docx (17.9KB, docx)
    S2 Table. likelihood test result for total abundance model.

    (DOCX)

    pbio.3003285.s007.docx (17.8KB, docx)
    S3 Table. The effects of the total nitrogen deposition on species richness of Arthropods.

    Output mainly includes two parts: fixed part and random part. Fixed part includes estimates, 95% confidence intervals (CI) and p-values. Random part include: τ00 is the model variance explained by the random effects (SS represent studies, SSB represent blocks, SSBS represent sites within blocks), σ2 is the residual variance, and the marginal and conditional R2 values.

    (DOCX)

    pbio.3003285.s008.docx (19.8KB, docx)
    S4 Table. The effects of the total nitrogen deposition on total abundance of Arthropods.

    Output mainly includes two parts: fixed part and random part. Fixed part includes estimates, 95% confidence intervals (CI) and p-values. Random part include: τ00 is the model variance explained by the random effects (SS represent studies, SSB represent blocks, SSBS represent sites within blocks), σ2 is the residual variance, and the marginal and conditional R2 values.

    (DOCX)

    pbio.3003285.s009.docx (19.7KB, docx)
    S5 Table. Effects of oxidized nitrogen deposition (NOy) on the species richness of Arthropods.

    Output mainly includes two parts: fixed part and random part. Fixed part includes estimates, 95% confidence intervals (CI) and p-values. Random part include: τ00 is the model variance explained by the random effects (SS represent studies, SSB represent blocks, SSBS represent sites within blocks), σ2 is the residual variance, and the marginal and conditional R2 values.

    (DOCX)

    pbio.3003285.s010.docx (20.1KB, docx)
    S6 Table. Effects of reduced nitrogen deposition (NHx) on the species richness of Arthropods.

    Output mainly includes two parts: fixed part and random part. Fixed part includes estimates, 95% confidence intervals (CI) and p-values. Random part include: τ00 is the model variance explained by the random effects (SS represent studies, SSB represent blocks, SSBS represent sites within blocks), σ2 is the residual variance, and the marginal and conditional R2 values.

    (DOCX)

    pbio.3003285.s011.docx (20.1KB, docx)
    S7 Table. Effects of oxidized nitrogen deposition (NOy) on the total abundance of Arthropods.

    Output mainly includes two parts: fixed part and random part. Fixed part includes estimates, 95% confidence intervals (CI) and p-values. Random part include: τ00 is the model variance explained by the random effects (SS represent studies, SSB represent blocks, SSBS represent sites within blocks), σ2 is the residual variance, and the marginal and conditional R2 values.

    (DOCX)

    pbio.3003285.s012.docx (19.9KB, docx)
    S8 Table. Effects of reduced nitrogen deposition (NHx) on the total abundance of Arthropods.

    Output mainly includes two parts: fixed part and random part. Fixed part includes estimates, 95% confidence intervals (CI) and p-values. Random part include: τ00 is the model variance explained by the random effects (SS represent studies, SSB represent blocks, SSBS represent sites within blocks), σ2 is the residual variance, and the marginal and conditional R2 values.

    (DOCX)

    pbio.3003285.s013.docx (20.1KB, docx)
    S9 Table. The effects of nitrogen deposition on the species richness of Arthropods in Europe with a finer resolution dataset (0.1° × 0.1°).

    Output mainly includes two parts: fixed part and random part. Fixed part includes estimates, 95% confidence intervals (CI) and p-values. Random part includes: τ00 for the model variance explained by the random effects (SS represent studies, SSB represent blocks, SSBS represent sites within blocks), σ2 for the residual variance, and the marginal and conditional R2 values. The oxnrdnRS represent the nitrogen deposition data derived from EMEP model.

    (DOCX)

    pbio.3003285.s014.docx (20.4KB, docx)
    S10 Table. The effects of nitrogen deposition on the total abundance of Arthropods in Europe with a finer resolution dataset (0.1° × 0.1°).

    Output mainly includes two parts: fixed part and random part. Fixed part includes estimates, 95% confidence intervals (CI) and p-values. Random part includes: τ00 for the model variance explained by the random effects (SS represent studies, SSB represent blocks, SSBS represent sites within blocks), σ2 for the residual variance, and the marginal and conditional R2 values. The oxnrdnRS represent the nitrogen deposition data derived from EMEP model.

    (DOCX)

    pbio.3003285.s015.docx (20.2KB, docx)
    S11 Table. The effects of the total nitrogen deposition on Chao estimated species richness of Arthropods.

    Output mainly includes two parts: fixed part and random part. Fixed part includes estimates, 95% confidence intervals (CI) and p-values. Random part includes: τ00 for the model variance explained by the random effects (SS represent studies, SSB represent blocks, SSBS represent sites within blocks), σ2 for the residual variance, and the marginal and conditional R2 values.

    (DOCX)

    pbio.3003285.s016.docx (20.4KB, docx)
    S12 Table. Variance inflation factors for the explanatory variables in richness model.

    (DOCX)

    pbio.3003285.s017.docx (17.8KB, docx)
    S13 Table. Variance inflation factors for the explanatory variables in abundance model.

    (DOCX)

    pbio.3003285.s018.docx (17.7KB, docx)
    S1 Text. Model structure and selection.

    (DOCX)

    pbio.3003285.s019.docx (20.6KB, docx)
    S2 Text. Test of finer N deposition data with 0.1° resolution.

    (DOCX)

    pbio.3003285.s020.docx (17.6KB, docx)
    S3 Text. The effects of the total N deposition on species richness of Arthropods when Chao estimated species richness index was used.

    (DOCX)

    pbio.3003285.s021.docx (17.3KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: PBIOLOGY-D-25-00837_R1_reviewer3.pdf

    pbio.3003285.s023.pdf (1.5MB, pdf)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    pbio.3003285.s025.docx (361.6KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response_to_Reviewers_auresp_3.docx

    pbio.3003285.s026.docx (361.6KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    The data that support the findings of this study are openly available in figshare at DOI: https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.29109170.


    Articles from PLOS Biology are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES