This website requires JavaScript.
Adaptive self-organization in swidden agriculture
Abstract
More than forty years ago, Michael Dove (1983) traced persistent myths about swidden agriculture to a "political economy of ignorance." A polarization of "good" and "bad" perceptions of swidden was sustained, he argued, because it served the interests of the powerful, and it remains entrenched today even as theory, methods, and data have improved markedly. This essay argues that a second, epistemological problem may contribute to the persistence of these myths: the dominant epistemological approaches to swidden research talk past one another. First, drawing on Barker and Fraser's (2023) concept of the "unraveled rope," I examine the argument structure of three swidden case studies spanning distinct disciplines and opposing normative poles. In each, the empirical work is sound, but argument defects exist: the conclusion misrelates the evidence to undefended value premises, overstating what the data can support about whether swidden is good or bad for the forest. Second, I conduct a targeted review of the swidden scholarship that shows how this polarization may reflect a deeper disjuncture between top-down and bottom-up research traditions, neither of which fully explains how small-scale societies shape large-scale forests. Third, I propose adaptive self-organization as an integrative framework connecting community-level decisions to emergent, landscape-scale dynamics. Synthesizing two decades of my own research, I show how adaptive self-organization connects farmers' local decisions to the landscape-scale forest patterns. In doing so, the essay reframes swidden as an adaptive self-organizing coupled human-nature system and offers an epistemological counterpart to the political economy of ignorance Dove diagnosed a generation ago.

Acknowledgements

This paper was written during a one-month residency at the Paris Institute for Advanced Study in June 2026. I am grateful for many lively and engaging discussion with the other Fellows and staff. My research program was made possible with generous support from the U.S. National Science Foundation, and I acknowledge the financial support provided by DDRIG grant #0647832 and CAREER grant #1818597. I remain fully responsible for any errors or omissions in this paper.

Introduction

Swidden agriculture involves an annual pattern of forest clearing, burning, cultivation, harvesting, and planting, followed by longer fallow periods when natural ecosystem processes restore above-ground biomass, species diversity, and soil fertility. It is best understood as a socioecological prototype that takes many forms in different parts of the world and throughout the entirety of the last 10,000 years of human history. Many renowned anthropologists have studied swidden, including Harold Conklin (1957), Clifford Geertz (1963), Michael Dove (1983, 2015), William Balée (2013), and James Scott (2009). Even Carl Linnaeus, the inventor of the modern system of scientific taxonomy, studied swidden in subarctic Sweden (Linnaeus, 1775, cited in Dove, 2015). A common thread in this scientific literature is that "swidden-is-good" for the forest – that is, it can be practiced sustainably, and, under some circumstances, it can sustain human populations without degrading the environment. In recent years, appreciation for swidden's resilience and adaptive capacity has grown, and there is growing appreciation for its importance in conservation (Ziegler, 2011). But when it comes to swidden, the elephant in the room is slash-and-burn – a dysphemism (negative epithet) reflecting the widely-held perception that "swidden-is-bad" for the forest. This bias persists both in society-at-large (e.g., New York Times, 1990), and applied fields like environmental conservation, rural development, and climate change policy (REDD+).

In the 1983 article, "Theories of swidden agriculture, and the political economy of ignorance," Michael Dove debunks several myths that appeared in both scientific discourses and in society-at-large about the communities that use swidden. These persistent misunderstandings incorrectly assume that swidden communities own land communally, waste environmental resources, and remain isolated from regional, national, and global economies and trade networks. Dove argued against each of them in turn and suggested that their persistence in science and society was likely because they supported the interests of groups with the most political and economic capital, at the expense of those without – the swidden cultivators themselves (Dove, 1983). Despite some improvement, the situation remains largely the same a generation later. While powerful political interests undoubtedly remain a critical factor, global climate concerns are arguably worse, and theory, methods, and data available to swidden scholars have improved markedly. Given this, why would the polarization in discourses surrounding swidden continue to persist, and why has scientific research failed to provide an alternative to a polarized debate where both sides appear to talk past each other? Here, I explore whether the historical production of research shaped and sustained the ongoing polarization of swidden in science. For the purposes of this essay, I will set aside Dove's insight about the political ecology of swidden agriculture and focus on the question of its epistemological foundations; specifically, whether any normative values about swidden are properly related to empirical claims in publications about swidden.

The article proceeds as follows: Section 2 uses a logic-based method from philosophy to diagnose whether normative bias undermines a study's scientific integrity using argument analysis, which breaks arguments into their explicit empirical premises and value premises and tests whether its conclusions logically follow (Barker & Fraser, 2023). Due to the detailed nature of argument analyses, I selected three case studies spanning normative poles, and across three disciplines: history, remote sensing, and anthropology. To foreshadow the results, the section identifies the possibility of normative bias across perspectives and disciplines, and the section ends by proposing the question explored in the following sections: Did the normative polarization of swidden studies result from the historical absence of theoretical models that could explain how small-scale societies consisting of tens or hundreds of people could sustainably interact with or "manage" (sensu lato) large-scale natural environments?

The literature on swidden is vast; it spans many disciplines, and there is a recent bibliometric review (Li & Nath, 2024). Given this, the goal of Section 3 is to identify key themes and theoretical tensions using a "top-down/bottom-up" framework. Top-down swidden studies are defined as using demographic, technological, or spatial models and/or theoretical frameworks and a more deductive approach to analyze empirical patterns using generalizable laws or principles. In contrast, bottom-up studies are defined as using a more inductive approach involving fine-grained and contextual data to identify causal mechanisms, typically in localized contexts. Like most classification systems, any one study is unlikely to map perfectly to either category, and of course, other classification schemes could also be used: logical form(s) (inductive, abductive, and/or deductive), geographic region, temporal period, or academic discipline. However, this top-down/bottom-up review framework appears to highlight a previously unidentified epistemological disjuncture that may contribute to the persistence of normative polarization in swidden studies.

Building on this observation, Section 4 proposes that the concept of adaptive self-organization may provide an alternative to top-down and bottom-up approaches. Adaptive self-organization predicts that low-level interactions may relate to higher-order emergent properties of coupled human-nature systems. The mathematical rules governing the dynamics of complex adaptive systems were discovered in the last decades of the 20^th^century (Bak et al., 1987; May, 1976), and J. Stephen Lansing subsequently introduced the concept of complex adaptive systems to anthropology (Lansing, 2003). This section begins with a summary of general principles and a concise framework for studying Adaptive Self-Organization (ASO) in swidden agriculture. I then synthesize over a decade of my own research into adaptive self-organizing swidden that provides preliminary support for this approach.

In the conclusion, I return to the questions raised here in the introduction and briefly discuss whether adaptive self-organization is just a different model of swidden, or whether it can help overcome the epistemological limitations that may have characterized previous swidden research.

Identifying normative bias in swidden scholarship

Recently, philosopher Matthew Barker and biologist Dylan Fraser (2023) identified a previously unrecognized problem in conservation research regarding faulty argumentation. In this section, I explore whether this problem extends to the literature on swidden agriculture. They defined the unraveled rope problem as a class of scientific arguments about conservation that are structurally flawed because they define fallacious relationships between empirical results and the normative values and premises that underlie their conclusions. They write,

"...just as strands of rope must be properly and intricately wound with each other so that the rope supports its load, empirical aspects and value aspects of an argument must relate intricately and properly if the argument is to support its conclusion."

When I first read this paper, I became intrigued to apply its approach to swidden research because one of the examples the authors use to illustrate the unraveled rope problem involves agriculture and forest biodiversity (Vellend et al., 2007; Vellend, 2019). I will paraphrase Barker and Fraser's (2023) summary here: The original study (Vellend, 2007) analyzed the effect of historic-period agricultural land use on beta diversity in eleven forest landscapes in north-eastern North America and Europe. It found a pattern of landscape homogenization in forest plant communities and a reduction of beta diversity among recent forest patches, when compared to older growth forest patches. The paper drew scholarly attention and was cited to support the claim that agriculture diminishes forest biodiversity at landscape scale. However, in a later reflection (2019), Vellend reflected on this use of his work and observed that subsequent studies often drew broader conclusions from his earlier work than what his original 2007 study design would actually support. The study compared the beta diversity among forest patches between two classes (recent- and old-growth forest), yet the argument was extended to make a claim that agriculture reduced diversity at the landscape scale (gamma diversity). Not only is this claim unsupported by the original research design, Vellend noted that this landscape perspective may actually support the opposite conclusion because a landscape containing both ancient and recent forest patches may therefore be more heterogeneous and biodiverse than a landscape containing only ancient or recent forest separately (see Barker & Fraser, 2023, Figure 2).

Barker and Fraser suggest that the reason the research community inappropriately extrapolated the conclusions of the 2007 study was because they likely held an unconscious normative bias that "humans are bad for nature" and they labeled this family of defects in scientific argumentation ironic community bias. it is defined as a normative bias in a research community that carries conclusions beyond what individual studies establish, without any explicit argument supporting a broader claim, and in the opposite direction (hence, ironic). In addition to ironic community bias, Barker and Fraser identified five other families of argument defects, which for the sake of brevity are summarized in the first column of Table 1. Vellend et al. (2007) is concerned with the effects of historical-period field agriculture on forest diversity in temperate ecotones; therefore, its stated conclusions at the between-patch level do not directly extend to swidden forests. However, the study's argument structure, argument defects, and substantive conclusions about the relationship between patch-level field observations and landscape biodiversity are recognizable in swidden scholarship.

The three case study analyses that follow are intended to identify the unraveled rope problem in swidden research and to identify some of its characteristics. The first article by David Henley (2011) is a historical study using mostly qualitative methods, drawing on colonial-era records and first-person reports from Dutch officers of small-scale swidden agriculture in 18^th^ century Sulawesi. Molinario et al. (2015) use remote sensing classifications and fragmentation analysis to map modern cultivation patterns across the Democratic Republic of Congo, to characterize the effects of swidden on core forested areas. And Ross (2011) is a quantitative study in historical ecology and archaeology that uses modern forest surveys to test how ancient Maya land use practices affect modern forest biodiversity. Taken together, these articles illustrate top-down and bottom-up approaches to swidden research: Molinario et al.'s (2015) use of remote sensing is an example of a top-down approach; Henley (2011) uses detailed first-person historical accounts, illustrating a bottom-up approach; and Ross' (2011) use of detailed archaeological settlement maps as a sampling framework also illustrates a bottom-up approach. With respect to normative premises, Ross (2011) represents swidden-is-good, while Henley (2015) and Molinario et al. (2015) represent swidden-is-bad. These studies were specifically chosen because the structures of their arguments are sufficiently transparent to permit close analysis, and because they represent distinct disciplines, methodologies, and different normative premises.

Detailed argument analyses for each of the case studies are presented in turn and then synthesized at the end of the section. For each study, an analytic summary and assessment of the risk of each argument defect family is presented in Table 1.

Table 1. Summaries of argument analysis of three swidden case studies from history, remote sensing, and anthropology. Empirical and value premises are labeled A1, A2, B1, etc.. Evaluation criteria: "Present" means the defect is clearly identifiable in the argument structure and materially weakens support for the conclusion. "Risk" means that the defect is not fully realized but the argument structure creates conditions under which it is likely to be read as committing it; "Absent" means that the argument handles this dimension adequately (not observed).

| Analytic summary and defect families (Barker and Fraser 2023) | "Swidden Farming as an Agent of Environmental Change: Ecological Myth and Historical Reality in Indonesia" (Henley 2011) | "Forest cover dynamics of shifting cultivation in the Democratic Republic of Congo: a remote sensing-based assessment for 2000–2010" (Molinario, Hansen, and Potapov 2015) | "Modern tree species composition reflects ancient Maya 'forest gardens'" (Ross 2011) | |

Bibliography
Arroyo‐Rodríguez, V. (2017). Multiple successional pathways in human‐modified tropical landscapes: new insights from forest succession, forest fragmentation and landscape ecology research. Biological Reviews, 92(1), 326–340.
Atran, S. (2002). Folkecology, cultural epidemiology, and the spirit of the commons: A garden experiment in the Maya lowlands, 1991-2001. Current Anthropology, 43(3), 421–450.
Bak, P., Tang, C., & Wiesenfeld, K. (1987). Self-organized criticality: An explanation of the 1/f noise. Physical Review Letters, 59(4), 381.
Balée, W. L. (1994). Footprints of the forest: Ka’apor ethnobotany-the historical ecology of plant utilization by an Amazonian people. Columbia University Press.
Balée, W. (2006). The research program of historical ecology. Annual Review of Anthropology, 35(1), 75–98.
Balée, W. (2013). Cultural forests of the Amazon: a historical ecology of people and their landscapes. University of Alabama Press.
Bird, B., & Rebecca. (2015). Disturbance, complexity, scale: new approaches to the study of human–environment interactions. Annual Review of Anthropology, 44, 241–257.
Bogaard, A. (2004). Neolithic Farming in Central Europe: An Archaeobotanical Study of Crop Husbandry Practices. Routledge.
Boserup, E. (1965). The Conditions of Agricultural Growth: The Economics of Agrarian Change Under Population Pressure.
Brush, S. B. (1975). The Concept of Carrying Capacity for Systems of Shifting Cultivation. American Anthropologist, 77(4), 799–811.
Bruun, T. B. (2009). Environmental Consequences of the Demise in Swidden Cultivation in Southeast Asia: Carbon Storage and Soil Quality. Human Ecology, 37(3), 347–360.
Carneiro, R. L. (1960). Slash-and-burn agriculture: A closer look at its implications for settlement patterns. In A. F. C. Wallace (Ed.), Men and Cultures: Selected Papers of the Fifth International Congress of Anthropological and Ethnological Sciences (pp. 229–234). University of Pennsylvania Press.
Chazdon, R. L., & Arroyo, J. P. (2013). Tropical forests as complex adaptive systems. In C. Messier, K. J. Puettmann, & K. D. Coates (Eds.), Managing forests as complex adaptive systems (pp. 35–59). Routledge.
Chazdon, R. L. (2014). Second Growth: The Promise of Tropical Forest Regeneration in an Age of Deforestation. University of Chicago Press.
Clauset, A., Shalizi, C. R., & Newman, M. E. J. (2009). Power-law distributions in empirical data. SIAM Review, 51(4), 661–703.
Coe, W. R. (1957). Environmental limitation on Maya culture: A re-examination. American Anthropologist, 59(2), 328–335.
Conklin, H. C. (1957). Hanunóo Agriculture: A Report on an Integral System of Shifting Cultivation in the Philippines. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
Cowgill, U. M. (1962). An Agricultural Study of the Southern Maya lowlands. American Anthropologist, 64(2), 273–286.
Cramb, R. A. (2009). Swidden Transformations and Rural Livelihoods in Southeast Asia. Human Ecology, 37(3), 323–346.
Dove, M. R. (1983). Theories of swidden agriculture, and the political economy of ignorance. Agroforestry Systems, 1(2), 85–99.
Dove, M. R. (1985). Swidden Agriculture in Indonesia: The Subsistence Strategies of the Kalimantan Kantu’. Walter de Gruyter.
Dove, M. R. (1993). Uncertainty, humility, and adaptation in the tropical forest: The agricultural augury of the Kantu’. Ethnology, 32(2), 145–167.
Dove, M. R. (2015). Linnaeus’ study of Swedish swidden cultivation: Pioneering ethnographic work on the ‘Economy of nature.’ Ambio, 44(3), 239–248.
Downey, S. S. (2010). Can properties of labor exchange networks explain the resilience of swidden agriculture? Ecology and Society, 15(4).
Downey, S. S. (2015). Q’eqchi’ Maya swidden agriculture, settlement history, and colonial enterprise in Modern Belize. Ethnohistory, 62(4), 751–779.
Downey, S. S., Gerkey, D., & Scaggs, S. A. (2020). The Milpa Game: A field experiment investigating the social and ecological dynamics of Q’eqchi’ Maya swidden agriculture. Human Ecology, 48(4), 423–438.
Downey, S. S., Walker, M., Moschler, J., Penados, F., Pop, J., Qin, R., Peterman, W., Scaggs, S., & Song, S. (2023). Intermediate swidden disturbance increases spectral diversity in Maya community forests. Communications Earth and Environment, 4(428).
Downey, S. S., Tverskoi, D., Scaggs, S. A., Wu, X., Syed, Z., Lebowitz, J., Qin, R., & Thurner, S. (2026). Adaptive self-organization of global swidden forests. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 123(24), 2606552123.
Dressler, W. H. (2017). The Impact of Swidden Decline on Livelihoods and Ecosystem Services in Southeast Asia: A Review of the Evidence from 1990 to 2015. Ambio, 46(3), 291–310.
Fearnside, P. M. (1986). Human Carrying Capacity of the Brazilian Rainforest. Columbia University Press.
Fisher, L. (2009). The Perfect Swarm: The Science of Complexity in Everyday Life. Basic Books.
Ford, A., & Nigh, R. (2016). The Maya Forest garden: Eight millennia of sustainable cultivation of the tropical woodlands (Vol. 6). Routledge.
Fox, J., & Vogler, J. B. (2005). Land-Use and Land-Cover Change in Montane Mainland Southeast Asia. Environmental Management, 36(3), 394–403.
Geertz, C. (1963). Agricultural involution: The processes of ecological change in Indonesia. University of California Press.
Hames, R. (2007). The ecologically noble savage debate. Annual Review of Anthropology, 36(1), 177–190.
Hatse, I., & Ceuster, P. (2001). Cosmovisión y espiritualidad en la agricultura Q’eqchi’. Texto Ak’Kutan, 18.
Heinimann, A. (2017). A Global View of Shifting Cultivation: Recent, Current, and Future Extent. PLoS ONE, 12(9), 0184479.
Henley, D. (2011). Swidden Farming as an Agent of Environmental Change: Ecological Myth and Historical Reality in Indonesia. Environment and History, 17(4), 525–554.
Hirshberg, R. I., & Hirshberg, J. F. (1957). Meggers’ law of environmental limitation on culture. American Anthropologist, 59(5), 890–892.
Holland, J. H. (1995). Hidden Order: How Adaptation Builds Complexity. Addison-Wesley.
Holland, J. H. (2014). Complexity: A very short introduction. OUP Oxford.
Iversen, J. (1941). Landnam i Danmarks Stenalder: En pollenanalytisk undersøgelse over det første landbrugs indvirkning paa vegetationsudviklingen. Danmarks Geologiske Undersøgelse, II. Række, 66, 1–68.
Kéfi, S. (2007). Local facilitation, bistability and transitions in arid ecosystems. Theoretical Population Biology, 71(3), 367–379.
Lanly, J.-P. (1982). Tropical Forest Resources. FAO Forestry Paper, 30.
Lansing, J. S., & Kremer, J. N. (1993). Emergent properties of Balinese water temple networks: Coadaptation on a rugged fitness landscape. American Anthropologist, 95(1), 97–114.
Lansing, J. S. (2003). Complex adaptive systems. Annual Review of Anthropology, 32(1), 183–204.
Lansing, J. S. (2012). Perfect order: Recognizing complexity in Bali. Princeton University Press.
Lansing, J. S. (2017). Adaptive self-organization of Bali’s ancient rice terraces. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(25), 6504–6509.
Lawrence, D. (2010). Untangling a Decline in Tropical Forest Resilience: Constraints on the Sustainability of Shifting Cultivation Across the Globe. Biotropica, 42(1), 21–30.
Li, P., Feng, Z., Jiang, L., Liao, C., & Zhang, J. (2014). A review of swidden agriculture in Southeast Asia. Remote Sensing, 6(2), 1654–1683.
Li, P., & Nath, A. J. (2024). The history and revival of swidden agriculture research in the tropics. CABI Agriculture and Bioscience, 5(1), 84.
Liu, J. (2007). Coupled human and natural systems. Ambio, 36(8), 639–649.
Malthus, T. R. (1803). An Essay on the Principle of Population (2nd ed.).
May, R. M. (1976). Simple mathematical models with very complicated dynamics. Nature, 261(5560), 459–467.
Meadows, D. H. (1999). Leverage Points: Places to Intervene in a System. Sustainability Institute [Web.]. https://donellameadows.org/wp-content/userfiles/Leverage_Points.pdf
Meggers, B. J. (1954). Environmental limitation on the development of culture. American Anthropologist, 56(4), 801–824.
Meggers, B. J. (1957). Environmental limitation on Maya culture: a reply to Coe. American Anthropologist, 59(5), 888–890.
Mertz, O. (2009). Trends in Shifting Cultivation and the REDD Mechanism. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 1(2), 156–160.
Messier, C. (2015). From management to stewardship: viewing forests as complex adaptive systems in an uncertain world. Conservation Letters, 8(5), 368–377.
Mitchell, M. (2009). Complexity: A Guided Tour. Oxford University Press.
Molinario, G., Hansen, M. C., & Potapov, P. V. (2015). Forest cover dynamics of shifting cultivation in the Democratic Republic of Congo: a remote sensing-based assessment for 2000–2010. Environmental Research Letters, 10(9), 094009.
Nye, P. H., & Greenland, D. J. (1960). The Soil Under Shifting Cultivation. Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux.
Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge University Press.
Otto, J. S., & Anderson, N. E. (1982). Slash-and-burn cultivation in the Highlands South: A problem in comparative agricultural history. Comparative Studies in Society and History, 24(1), 131–147.
Padoch, C. (2007). The Demise of Swidden in Southeast Asia? Local Realities and Regional Ambiguities. Geografisk Tidsskrift, 107(1), 29–41.
Padoch, C., & Pinedo-Vasquez, M. (2010). Saving Slash-and-Burn to Save Biodiversity. Biotropica, 42(5), 550–552.
Rappaport, R. A. (1968). Pigs for the Ancestors: Ritual in the Ecology of a New Guinea People. Yale University Press.
Rösch, M. (2002). An Experimental Approach to Neolithic Shifting Cultivation. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany, 11(1), 143–154.
Ross, N. J. (2011). Modern tree species composition reflects ancient Maya “forest gardens” in northwest Belize. Ecological Applications, 21(1), 75–84.
Ruthenberg, H. (1971). Farming Systems in the Tropics. Clarendon Press.
S.J., L., & M, L. (2015). Theoretical perspectives on bottom-up and top-down interactions across ecosystems. Ecological Reviews, 3–28.
Scaggs, S. A., Wu., X., Syed, Z., Allred, J., Tverskoi, D., Qin, R., & Downey, S. S. (2026, August). Anthropogenic disturbance and spatial heterogeneity shape vegetation diversity in tropical swidden mosaics globally. Proceedings of the Royal Society B. https://doi.org/10.1101/2025.03.05.641554
Schackt, J. (1986). One god, two temples. Occasional Papers in Social Anthropology, 13.
Schwartz, N. B., & M, A. R. C. (2015). Swidden counts: A Petén, Guatemala, milpa system: production, carrying capacity, and sustainability in the southern Maya Lowlands. Journal of Anthropological Research, 71(1), 69–93.
Sivaramakrishnan, K. (1995). Colonialism and Forestry in India: Imagining the Past in Present Politics. Comparative Studies in Society and History, 37(1), 3–40.
Sovu, T., M., S., P., O., C., P., & Xayvongsa, L. (2009). Development of secondary forests on swidden cultivation fallows in Laos. Forest Ecology and Management, 258(12), 2666–2675.
Suchikova, Y. (2026). GAIDeT (Generative AI Delegation Taxonomy): A taxonomy for humans to delegate tasks to generative artificial intelligence in scientific research and publishing. Accountability in Research, 33(3), 2544331.
Thompson, E. P. (2016). The making of the English working class. Open Road Media.
Thrupp, L. A. (1997). The Diversity and Dynamics of Shifting Cultivation: Myths, Realities, and Policy Implications. World Resources Institute.
Turner, B. L., II. (1977). Population Pressure and Agricultural Intensity. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 67(3), 384–396.
Tverskoi, D., Scaggs, S. A., & Downey, S. S. (2025). A complex adaptive systems model of labour reciprocity and normative reasoning in swidden agriculture. Royal Society Open Science, 12, 242197.
The Politics of Slash and Burn. (1990). New York Times.
Vliet, & Nathalie. (2012). Trends, drivers and impacts of changes in swidden cultivation in tropical forest-agriculture frontiers: a global assessment. Global Environmental Change, 22(2), 418–429.
Ziegler, A. D. (2011). Recognizing Contemporary Roles of Swidden Agriculture in Transforming Landscapes of Southeast Asia. Conservation Biology, 25(4), 846–848.
Ziegler, A. D. (2012). Carbon Outcomes of Major Land-Cover Transitions in SE Asia: Great Uncertainties and REDD+ Policy Implications. Global Change Biology, 18(10), 3087–3099.
17/08/2026