Biodiversity monitoring increasingly relies on modern technologies such as sensor networks and environmental DNA. These high-throughput methods allow biodiversity assessments with unprecedented detail and are especially useful to detect rare and secretive species that are otherwise difficult to observe with traditional survey-based methods. False negatives through imperfect detection are a typical problem in survey data and depend on intrinsic characteristics of the species, site characteristics of the survey site as well as survey characteristics (Guillera 2017). While imperfect detection might be reduced in modern sensor data and eDNA data, also these types of data are by no means error-free and may bare other challenges. In particular, the bioinformatics and image classification approaches used for species identification from these data can induce a higher rate of false positives than would be expected in expert-based survey data (Hartig et al. 2024).

Occupancy models (or occupancy-detection models) have been widely used to map species distributions by fitting a hierarchical model that estimates the paramaters of both the species-environment relationship and an observation submodel. They account for false negatives by inferring detectability from the detection history of a survey location, for example from replicate visits or multiple observers (Guillera 2017). These basic occupancy-detection models assume no false positive errors in the data. Other authors have proposed extensions for false positives that typically rely on unambiguous (known truth) information for some sites or observations (Chambert et al. 2015).

In their preprint, Monchy et al. (2024) propose an extension of classic occupancy models that considers a two-step observation process modelling the detection probability at occupied sites and the associated identification probability, separated into the true positive identification rate and the true negative identification rate. Using a simulation approach, the authors compare the effectiveness of a frequentist (maximum likelihood-based) and Bayesian approach for parameter estimation and identifiability, and additionally test the effectiveness of different priors (from non-informative to highly informative). Results of the maximum-likelihood approach indicated biased parameter estimates and identifiability problems. In the Bayesian approach, inclusion of prior information greatly reduces biases in parameter estimates, especially in detection and positive identification rate.

Importantly, informative priors for the identification process are a by-product of the classifiers that are developed for processing the eDNA data or sensor data. For example, species identification from acoustic sensors is based on image classifiers trained on labelled bird song spectrograms (Kahl et al. 2021) and as part of the evaluation of the classifier, the true positive rate (sensitivity) is routinely being estimated and could thus be readily used in occupancy models accounting for false positives. Thus, the approach proposed by Monchy et al. (2024) is not only highly relevant for biodiversity assessments based on novel sensor and eDNA data but also provides very practical solutions that do not require additional unambiguous data but recycle data that are already available in the processing pipeline. Applying their framework to real-world data will help reducing biases in biodiversity assessments and through improved understanding of the detection process it could also help optimising the design of sensor networks.

References

Thierry Chambert,  David A. W. Miller,  James D. Nichols (2015), Modeling false positive detections in species occurrence data under different study designs. Ecology, 96: 332-339. https://doi.org/10.1890/14-1507.1

Gurutzeta Guillera-Arroita (2017) Modelling of species distributions, range dynamics and communities under imperfect detection: advances, challenges and opportunities. Ecography, 40: 281-295. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecog.02445

Florian Hartig, Nerea Abrego, Alex Bush, Jonathan M. Chase, Gurutzeta Guillera-Arroita, Mathew A. Leibold,  Otso Ovaskainen, Loïc Pellissier, Maximilian Pichler, Giovanni Poggiato, Laura Pollock, Sara Si-Moussi, Wilfried Thuiller, Duarte S. Viana, David I. Warton, Damaris Zurell D, Douglas W. Yu (2024) Novel community data in ecology - properties and prospects. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 39: 280-293. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2023.09.017

Stefan Kahl, Connor M. Wood, Maximilian Eibl, Holger Klinck (2021) BirdNET: A deep learning solution for avian diversity monitoring. Ecological Informatics, 61: 101236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoinf.2021.101236

Célian Monchy, Marie-Pierre Etienne, Olivier Gimenez (2024) Using informative priors to account for identifiability issues in occupancy models with identification errors. bioRxiv, ver.3 peer-reviewed and recommended by PCI Ecology https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.05.07.592917

The functional response, describing the relation between predator intake rate and prey density, is a pivotal concept to understand foraging behaviour and its consequences for community dynamics. Holling (1959a) introduced three types of functional responses according to their shapes, labelled I, II and III.  The type II, also known as the disc equation (Holling 1959b), has become popular among empiricists and theoreticians alike, due to its ability to describe predator intake saturation. The type III is often used to represent predator switching to other prey species when main prey density is low. 

Although theoretical works identify the linear functional response used in Lotka-Volterra models as a type I, Holling (1959a)’s type I model actually envisioned that at some threshold prey density, the linear increase in predator intake with prey density would give way to an upper predator intake limit, so that Holling’s type I has a rectilinear shape, with an angle joining straight lines. Ecology students can actually see this rectilinear shape reproduced in some texbooks, although not in textbook dynamical models, as they usually transition from Lotka-Volterra models to models with type II response. 

To many, the rectilinear shape of the original type I looks like a historical curiosity: the type II functional response accounts for intake rate saturation with a more convenient smooth function. 

Novak et al. (2025) turn this preconception on its head by first pedagogically showing that Holling’s original type I model can be obtained as a limit case of a variant of the celebrated type II model. The derivation follows up earlier work by Sjöberg (1980), which might be unfamiliar to readers outside aquatic ecology. The often untold assumption of the type II functional response model is that searching and handling prey are two exclusive behavioural processes, with predators that can only handle one prey item at a time. Allowing for several prey items to be handled at once while searching, until the predator reaches n prey items, the original type I functional response emerges as a limit case of the « multiprey » functional response as n goes to infinity. Interestingly, the multiprey response looks a lot like the original type I for large yet doable n. 

Novak et al. (2025) then proceed to look for the prevalence of such multiprey functional response shapes in a large database of functional responses (Uiterwaal et al. 2022). Combining linear type I and multiprey models (the asymptote may not always be visible), they find support for this revised type I hypothesis in about one-third of the cases. Although the type II and III models are still well supported by data, the results do suggest that linearity at low prey density may well be more frequent than one thinks. They complement this analysis by showing that larger predators relative to their prey tend to have larger n in the multiprey response. It is consistent with the hypothesis that the bigger you are relative to your prey, the more prey items you can handle at once.

Finally, Novak et al. (2025) investigate the consequences of the multiprey model for community dynamics. They find overall a richer dynamical behaviour than the Lotka-Volterra type I and common parameterizations of the type II, suggesting that observed linearity in some range of prey density does not necessarily translate in simpler dynamical behaviour. 

Novak et al. (2025) provide here a convincing and pedagogical study showing how seemingly benign behavioural assumptions can in fact profoundly alter the perceived relevance of community dynamics models. As they conclude, their analyses have lessons for future empirical functional response work, which should not necessarily dismiss the type I model and consider perhaps variants to the classical type II and III, as well as for future theoretical analyses, which could generalize this model to multiple prey species, or relax other behavioural assumptions.

References

Holling, C. S. (1959a). The components of predation as revealed by a study of small-mammal predation of the European Pine Sawfly. The Canadian Entomologist, 91(5), 293-320. https://doi.org/10.4039/Ent91293-5 

Holling, C. S. (1959b). Some characteristics of simple types of predation and parasitism. The Canadian Entomologist, 91(7), 385-398. https://doi.org/10.4039/Ent91385-7  

Novak, M., Coblentz, K. E., & DeLong, J. P (2025). In defense of the original Type I functional response: The frequency and population-dynamic effects of feeding on multiple prey at a time. bioRxiv, ver.4 peer-reviewed and recommended by PCI Ecology https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.05.14.594210

Sjöberg, S. (1980). Zooplankton feeding and queueing theory. Ecological Modelling, 10(3-4), 215-225. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3800(80)90060-5 

Uiterwaal, S. F., Lagerstrom, I. T., Lyon, S. R., & DeLong, J. P. (2022). FoRAGE database: A compilation of functional responses for consumers and parasitoids. Ecology, 103(7), e3706. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecy.3706

Community structure is determined by the regional species pool – which for simplicity can be assumed to be filtered through dispersal limitations, abiotic conditions, and species coexistence mechanisms (Cornell & Harrison 2014). This filtering involves macroecological constraints, such as energy and space availability, and assembly rules that determine species composition (Diamond 1975; Weiher & Keddy 1995; Guisan & Rahbek 2011; Hortal et al. 2012). But also by a series of processes that determine species distributions across scales, including biogeographical and stochastic processes (e.g., large-scale dispersal and occupancy dynamics within the landscape) and deterministic niche-based responses to abiotic and biotic conditions, which interact across scales (Soberón 2010; Hortal et al. 2010; Brousseau et al. 2018). These processes collectively determine the persistence of species assemblages within communities. It follows that, to understand the processes determining the structure of these communities it is necessary to combine methods analyse the effects of drivers acting on both species distributions and community responses.

Van de Walle et al. (2025) take this integrative approach. The final revised version of their work combines multivariate techniques (in this case a RDA) and Joint SDMs to model the small-scale distribution and structure of the invertebrate communities inhabiting a series of coastal dunes in Southern England, France, Belgium and the Netherlands. The paper builds upon well-designed stratified field surveys, which allow them to identify variations at different scales, from geographical to local. These high-quality field data, together with the combination of different modelling techniques, allows them to identify both a clear biogeographical zonation in the structure of these communities, and the existence of a series of neat responses of species to the spatial structure and vigour of the tussocks created by the marram grass fixing the sand dunes. Their models also include the body size, feeding guild and phylogenetic relationships between co-occurring species, although their effects are smaller compared to those of biogeographical differences –which, arguably, are determined by differences in the species pool of each dune system, and species responses to the microhabitat conditions created by the tussocks. They can however identify a trade-off between generalist and specialist species within each community.

Note that here I'm using model in the sense of tools for understanding and explaining complex ecological systems, as advocated by Levins (1966). Which is precisely what Van de Walle et al. (2025) do here. By combining techniques tailored to model species distributions and community-level responses, they (we) gain a much improved understanding of how both species pools and the spatial structure of habitats determine the composition of ecological communities. Importantly, Van de Walle et al. (2025) use this knowledge to obtain key insights about how to manage and restore these endangered habitats, thereby proving the value of this kind of integrative approaches.

References

Brousseau, P.-M., Gravel, D., & Handa, I. T. (2018). On the development of a predictive functional trait approach for studying terrestrial arthropods. Journal of Animal Ecology, 87(5), 1209–1220. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2656.12834

Cornell, H. V., & Harrison, S. P. (2014). What are species pools and when are they important? Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 45(1), 45–67. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-120213-091759

Diamond, J. M. (1975). Assembly of species communities. In M. L. Cody & J. M. Diamond (Eds.), Ecology and Evolution of Communities (pp. 342–444). Harvard University Press.

Guisan, A., & Rahbek, C. (2011). SESAM – a new framework integrating macroecological and species distribution models for predicting spatio-temporal patterns of species assemblages. Journal of Biogeography, 38(8), 1433–1444. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2699.2011.02550.x

Hortal, J., Roura-Pascual, N., Sanders, N. J., & Rahbek, C. (2010). Understanding (insect) species distributions across spatial scales. Ecography, 33(1). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0587.2009.06428.x

Hortal, J., de Marco, P., Santos, A. M. C., & Diniz-Filho, J. A. F. (2012). Integrating biogeographical processes and local community assembly. Journal of Biogeography, 39(4). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2699.2012.02684.x

Levins, R. (1966). The strategy of model building in population biology. American Scientist, 54, 421–431.

Soberón, J. (2010). Niche and area of distribution modeling: A population ecology perspective. Ecography, 33(1), 159–167. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0587.2009.06074.x 

van de Walle, R., Dahirel, M., Langeraert, W., Benoit, D., Vantieghem, P., Vandegehuchte, M. L., Massol, F., & Bonte, D. (2025). Drivers of plant-associated invertebrate community structure in West-European coastal dunes. BioRxiv, 2024.06.24.600350, ver.3 peer-reviewed and recommended by PCI Ecology https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.06.24.600350

Weiher, E., & Keddy, P. A. (1995). Assembly rules, null models, and trait dispersion: New questions from old patterns. Oikos, 74(1), 159–164. https://doi.org/10.2307/3545686

Recently, microclimate has gained significant momentum [1], as evidenced by the increasing number of studies and the emergence of a dedicated scientific community coordinating research efforts [2]. Several factors underpin this trend, including advances in technology that have made microclimate monitoring [3] and ecological contextualization [4] more accessible, as well as improvements in computational methods that facilitate modeling at unprecedented scales [5]. But the growing emphasis on microclimate is primarily driven by their ecological relevance, as microclimate represent the actual climate conditions experienced by organisms [1]. This makes them more suitable than macroclimate data for understanding and predicting biodiversity responses to climate change [6]. While macroclimate data remain a common tool in ecology, they often represent generalized climatic conditions over large spatial scales. These data are typically derived from statistical models calibrated on observations collected at meteorological stations [7], which are usually located at 2 meters above the ground in open areas and at elevations compatible with human activities. Such characteristics limit the applicability of macroclimate data for understanding biodiversity responses, particularly at finer spatial scales.

 This is especially true in forest ecosystems, where microclimate results from the filtering of macroclimate conditions by forest habitats [8]. A simple walk in a forest during summer highlights this filtering, with the cooling effect of canopy shading and tree packing being clearly perceptible. If humans can sense these variations, they likely influence forest biodiversity. In fact, microclimates are crucial for defining the thermal niches of understory plant species [9] and understanding plant community reshuffling in response to climate warming [10]. In mountainous areas, topography adds further complexity to microclimates. The drop in temperature with elevation, known as the elevation-temperature lapse rate, is familiar, but topography also drives fine-scale variations [11]. Solar radiation hitting forest varies with aspect and hillshade, creating localized temperature differences. For example, equator-facing slopes receive more sunlight, while west-facing slopes are sunlit during the warmest part of the day. Consequently, in the northern hemisphere, southwest-facing slopes generally exhibit warmer temperatures, longer growing seasons, and shorter snow cover durations [12]. Thus, both topography and forest canopy shape the understory microclimate experienced by organisms in temperate mountainous forests.

 Is biodiversity more influenced by topography- or canopy-induced temperature buffering? While this question may not seem particularly interesting at first glance, understanding the underlying mechanisms of microclimate is crucial for guiding biodiversity conservation decisions in the face of climate change [13]. Poleward-facing slopes, valley bottoms, and dense canopies buffer warm episodes by creating cooler, more humid habitats that can serve as refugia for biodiversity [12]. Both buffering processes are valuable for conservation, but topography-induced buffering is generally more stable over the long term [14]. In contrast, canopy buffering is more vulnerable to human management, disturbances, and the ongoing acceleration of climate change, which is expected to drive tree mortality and lead to canopy opening [15]. Identifying the dominant buffering process in a given area is essential for mapping biodiversity refugia and fully integrating microclimate into conservation strategies. This approach can improve decision-making and actions aimed at promoting biodiversity sustainability in a warming world.

 The work of Borderieux and colleagues [16] offers new insights into this question through an innovative approach. They focus on temperate forests in a watershed in the Vosges Mountains, where they monitor understory temperature and inventory forest plant communities in separate samplings. Aiming to disentangle the effects of topography and forest canopy on understory temperature and its impact on plant communities, the authors deployed a network of temperature sensors using stratified sampling, balanced according to topography (elevation, aspect, and slope) and canopy cover. They then correlated mean annual temperatures (daily mean and maximum) with topographic factors and canopy cover, considering their potential interactions in a linear model. The contribution of each microclimate component was computed, and their effects on temperatures were mapped. These predictions were then confronted to floristic inventories to test whether topography- and canopy-induced temperature variations explained plant diversity and assemblages.

 First, the authors demonstrated that local topographic variations, which determine the amount of solar radiation reaching forests in mountainous areas, outweigh the contribution of canopy shading to understory temperatures. This result is surprising, as many previous studies have emphasized the importance of canopy buffering in shaping forest microclimate conditions [8]. However, these studies mostly focused on lowland areas or large scales, where terrain roughness has less influence. It is also unexpected because the authors observed that canopy cover varies at a smaller scale than aspect or topographic position in their study area, creating habitat heterogeneity that could reasonably drive local temperature variations. Nevertheless, the authors found that aspect, heat load, and topographic position induced more variation in microclimate than canopy filtering, significantly allowing deviations from the expected elevation-temperature lapse rate. Second, the topographic effect on understory temperature propagated to biodiversity. The authors found that topography-induced temperature offset explained plant diversity and composition, while canopy-induced temperature offset did not. Specifically, cold topoclimates harbored 30% more species than the average species richness across the inventoried plots. This increase in species richness was primarily due to an increase in cold-adapted species, highlighting the role of cold topoclimates as refugia.

 It is difficult to assess the extent to which these results are influenced by the specific forest context of the study area chosen by the authors, as there is no clear consensus in previous research regarding the role of topoclimate. For example, Macek et al. (2019) [17] highlighted the predominance of topography in controlling temperature and, consequently, forest community structure in the Czech Republic, while Vandewiele et al. (2023) [18] demonstrated the dominance of canopy control in the German Alps. The forest conditions investigated by Borderieux et al. (2025) were narrow, as they focused mainly on closed forests (more than 80% of the study area and sampling sites exhibiting canopy cover greater than 79%). Given that the canopy buffering effect on temperature increases with canopy cover until plateauing at around 80% [19], this may explain why the authors did not find a strong contribution from the canopy. Nevertheless, the methodology and case presented in their study are both innovative and applicable to other mountainous regions. The work of Borderieux et al. (2025) deserves attention for highlighting a frequently overlooked component of forest microclimate, as canopy filtering is typically regarded as the dominant driver. Topoclimate is a critical factor to consider when protecting cold-adapted forest species in the context of global warming, especially since topographic features are less subject to change than canopy cover. Future research should aim to test this hypothesis across a broader range of forest and topography conditions to identify general patterns, as well as assess the long-term effectiveness of these topographic refugia for biodiversity. It remains unclear whether the cooling effect provided by topoclimate will be sufficient to stabilize climate conditions despite the expected acceleration of climate warming in the coming decades, and whether it will be able to preserve cold-adapted species, which are among the most unique but threatened components of mountain biodiversity.

References

[1] Kemppinen, J. et al. Microclimate, an important part of ecology and biogeography. Global Ecology and Biogeography 33, e13834 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1111/geb.13834

[2] Lembrechts, J. J. et al. SoilTemp: A global database of near-surface temperature. Global Change Biology 26, 6616–6629 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15123

[3] Wild, J. et al. Climate at ecologically relevant scales: A new temperature and soil moisture logger for long-term microclimate measurement. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 268, 40–47 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2018.12.018

[4] Zellweger, F., Frenne, P. D., Lenoir, J., Rocchini, D. & Coomes, D. Advances in Microclimate Ecology Arising from Remote Sensing. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 34, 327–341 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2018.12.012

[5] Haesen, S. et al. ForestTemp – Sub-canopy microclimate temperatures of European forests. Global Change Biology 27, 6307–6319 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15892

[6] Lembrechts, J. J. et al. Comparing temperature data sources for use in species distribution models: From in-situ logging to remote sensing. Global Ecology and Biogeography 28, 1578–1596 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1111/geb.12974

[7] Fick, S. E. & Hijmans, R. J. WorldClim 2: new 1-km spatial resolution climate surfaces for global land areas. International Journal of Climatology 37, 4302–4315 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.5086

[8] De Frenne, P. et al. Global buffering of temperatures under forest canopies. Nat Ecol Evol 3, 744–749 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-019-0842-1

[9] Haesen, S. et al. Microclimate reveals the true thermal niche of forest plant species. Ecology Letters 26, 2043–2055 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.14312

[10] Zellweger, F. et al. Forest microclimate dynamics drive plant responses to warming. Science 368, 772–775 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aba6880

[11] Rolland, C. Spatial and Seasonal Variations of Air Temperature Lapse Rates in Alpine Regions. Journal of climate, 16(7), 1032-1046 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0442(2003)016%3C1032:SASVOA%3E2.0.CO;2

[12] Rita, A. et al. Topography modulates near-ground microclimate in the Mediterranean Fagus sylvatica treeline. Sci Rep 11, 1–14 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-87661-6

[13] Bertrand, R., Aubret, F., Grenouillet, G., Ribéron, A. & Blanchet, S. Comment on “Forest microclimate dynamics drive plant responses to warming”. Science 370, eabd3850 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abd3850

[14] Hylander, K., Greiser, C., Christiansen, D. M. & Koelemeijer, I. A. Climate adaptation of biodiversity conservation in managed forest landscapes. Conservation Biology 36, e13847 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13847

[15] McDowell, N. G. & Allen, C. D. Darcy’s law predicts widespread forest mortality under climate warming. Nature Clim Change 5, 669–672 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2641

[16] Borderieux, J. et al. Cool topoclimates promote cold-adapted plant diversity in temperate mountain forests. Ecoevorxiv, ver. 3( 2024). Peer-reviewed and recommended by PCI Ecology https://doi.org/10.32942/X2XC8T

[17] Macek, M., Kopecký, M. & Wild, J. Maximum air temperature controlled by landscape topography affects plant species composition in temperate forests. Landscape Ecol 34, 2541–2556 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-019-00903-x

[18] Vandewiele, M. et al. Mapping spatial microclimate patterns in mountain forests from LiDAR. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 341, 109662 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2023.109662

[19] Zellweger, F. et al. Seasonal drivers of understorey temperature buffering in temperate deciduous forests across Europe. Global Ecology and Biogeography 28, 1774–1786 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1111/geb.12991

As mankind develops increasingly efficient and productive methods of agriculture and food production, we have reached a point where intensive agriculture threatens several aspects of life on Earth, negatively affecting biodiversity, carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus cycles and water reservoirs, while producing considerable amounts of greenhouse gases (Krebs and Bach, 2018). There was a need to develop farming methods that were friendly to both nature and people, producing good quality, healthy food without destroying the environment. The idea of permaculture, a concept of sustainable agriculture based on methods learned directly from nature, originated in the 1960s, invented and developed by Bruce Charles Mollison and David Holmgren (Mollison and Holmgren 1979, Mollison et al. 1991, Holmgren 2002). Although the idea of permaculture has attracted scientific interest, the representation in published studies is unbalanced in favour of positive ecological and sociological effects, with much less presence of rigorous experimental testing (Ferguson and Lovell 2014, Reiff et al. 2024a).

Reiff et al. (2024b) provided the first large-scale empirical evidence of permaculture production outcomes for Central Europe. Based on results from 11 commercial permaculture sites, situated mostly in Germany but also in Switzerland and Luxembourg, the authors found that food production from permaculture sites was on average comparable to that from conventional and organic agriculture. The authors were very thorough in pointing out the issues that could potentially affect their results and which need further testing.

Among these, the authors highlight the considerable variability between the 11 sites studied, which may suggest that different permacultures should differ in details according to their specificity - an interesting issue that definitely requires further study. The other factor that the authors point out that could have influenced the results and led to an underestimation of the real potential is the age of the permaculture sites. The sites from the study were relatively young, and their potential can be expected to increase with time.

It is important to note that the results are mostly applicable to vegetables, as vegetable production accounted for 94% of production in the permaculture sites (followed by tree crops, 6%, and soft fruit production, 0.5%). There is therefore a need to include other types of crops produced in further studies of this type.

To date, the results informing permaculture food production are urgently needed and should cover the potentially wide range of geographical regions and crops produced. The results of Reiff et al. (2025) show that rigorous testing of this issue is demanding, but the authors provide a very sound "road map" of further steps.      

Literature:

Ferguson R. S. and Lovell S. T. 2014. Permaculture for agroecology: design, movement, practice, and worldview. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 34, 251-274. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-013-0181-6

Holmgren D. 2002. Permaculture: Principles & Pathways Beyond Sustainability. Holmgren Design Services, pp. 320.

Krebs J. and Bach S. 2018. Permaculture – scientific evidence of principles for the agroecological design of farming systems. Sustainability 10, 3218, https://doi.org/10.3390/su10093218

Mollison B. C. and Holmgren D. 1979. Permaculture One: A Perennial Agricultural System for Human Settlements. Tagari Publications, pp. 136.

Mollison B. C., Slay, R. M. and Jeeves A. 1991. Introduction to permaculture. Tagari Publications, pp. 198.

Reiff J., Jungkunst H. F., Mauser K. M., Kampel S., Regending S., Rösch V., Zaller J. G. and Entling M. H. 2024a. Permaculture enhances carbon stocks, soil quality and biodiversity in Central Europe. Communications Earth & Environment 5, 305. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-024-01405-8

Reiff J., Jungkunst H. F., Antes N. and Entling M. H. 2024b. Crop productivity of Central European Permaculture is within the range of organic and conventional agriculture. bioRxiv, ver.2 peer-reviewed and recommended by PCI Ecology. https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.09.09.611985