Recent from talks
Contribute something
Nothing was collected or created yet.
Biodiversity
View on Wikipedia
Biodiversity is the variability of life on Earth. It can be measured on various levels, for example, genetic variability, species diversity, ecosystem diversity and phylogenetic diversity.[1] Diversity is not distributed evenly on Earth—it is greater in the tropics as a result of the warm climate and high primary productivity in the region near the equator. Tropical forest ecosystems cover less than one-fifth of Earth's terrestrial area and contain about 50% of the world's species.[2] There are latitudinal gradients in species diversity for both marine and terrestrial taxa.[3]
Since life began on Earth, six major mass extinctions and several minor events have led to large and sudden drops in biodiversity. The Phanerozoic aeon (the last 540 million years) marked a rapid growth in biodiversity via the Cambrian explosion. In this period, the majority of multicellular phyla first appeared. The next 400 million years included repeated, massive biodiversity losses. Those events have been classified as mass extinction events. In the Carboniferous, rainforest collapse may have led to a great loss of plant and animal life. The Permian–Triassic extinction event, 251 million years ago, was the worst; vertebrate recovery took 30 million years.
Human activities have led to an ongoing biodiversity loss and an accompanying loss of genetic diversity. This process is often referred to as Holocene extinction, or the sixth mass extinction. For example, it was estimated in 2007 that up to 30% of all species will be extinct by 2050.[4] Destroying habitats for farming is a key reason why biodiversity is decreasing today. Climate change also plays a role.[5][6] This can be seen for example in the effects of climate change on biomes. This anthropogenic extinction may have started toward the end of the Pleistocene, as some studies suggest that the megafaunal extinction event that took place around the end of the last ice age partly resulted from overhunting.[7]
Definitions
[edit]
Biologists most often define biodiversity as the "totality of genes, species and ecosystems of a region".[8][9] An advantage of this definition is that it presents a unified view of the traditional types of biological variety previously identified:
- taxonomic diversity (usually measured at the species diversity level)[10]
- ecological diversity (often viewed from the perspective of ecosystem diversity)[10]
- morphological diversity (which stems from genetic diversity and molecular diversity[11])
- functional diversity (which is a measure of the number of functionally disparate species within a population (e.g. different feeding mechanisms, different motility, predator vs prey, etc.)[12])
Biodiversity is most commonly used to replace the more clearly-defined and long-established terms, species diversity and species richness.[13] However, there is no concrete definition for biodiversity, as its definition continues to be reimagined and redefined. To give a couple of examples, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) defined biodiversity in 2019 as "the variability that exists among living organisms (both within and between species) and the ecosystems of which they are part." The World Health Organization updated its website's definition of biodiversity to be the "variability among living organisms from all sources."[14] Both these definitions, although broad, give a current understanding of what is meant by the term biodiversity.
Number of species
[edit]According to estimates by Mora et al. (2011), there are approximately 8.7 million terrestrial species and 2.2 million oceanic species. The authors note that these estimates are strongest for eukaryotic organisms and likely represent the lower bound of prokaryotic diversity.[15] Other estimates include:
- 220,000 vascular plants, estimated using the species-area relation method[16]
- 0.7–1 million marine species[17]
- 10–30 million insects;[18] (of some 0.9 million we know today)[19]
- 5–10 million bacteria;[20]
- 1.5-3 million fungi, estimates based on data from the tropics, long-term non-tropical sites and molecular studies that have revealed cryptic speciation.[21] Some 0.075 million species of fungi had been documented by 2001;[22]
- 1 million mites[23]
- The number of microbial species is not reliably known, but the Global Ocean Sampling Expedition dramatically increased the estimates of genetic diversity by identifying an enormous number of new genes from near-surface plankton samples at various marine locations, initially over the 2004–2006 period.[24] The findings may eventually cause a significant change in the way science defines species and other taxonomic categories.[25][26]
Since the rate of extinction has increased, many extant species may become extinct before they are described.[27] Not surprisingly, in the Animalia the most studied groups are birds and mammals, whereas fishes and arthropods are the least studied animal groups.[28]
Current biodiversity loss
[edit]
During the last century, decreases in biodiversity have been increasingly observed. It was estimated in 2007 that up to 30% of all species will be extinct by 2050.[4] Of these, about one eighth of known plant species are threatened with extinction.[32] Estimates reach as high as 140,000 species per year (based on Species-area theory).[33] This figure indicates unsustainable ecological practices, because few species emerge each year.[34] The rate of species loss is greater now than at any time in human history, with extinctions occurring at rates hundreds of times higher than background extinction rates.[32][35][36] and expected to still grow in the upcoming years.[36][37][38] As of 2012, some studies suggest that 25% of all mammal species could be extinct in 20 years.[39]
In absolute terms, the planet has lost 58% of its biodiversity since 1970 according to a 2016 study by the World Wildlife Fund.[40] The Living Planet Report 2014 claims that "the number of mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and fish across the globe is, on average, about half the size it was 40 years ago". Of that number, 39% accounts for the terrestrial wildlife gone, 39% for the marine wildlife gone and 76% for the freshwater wildlife gone. Biodiversity took the biggest hit in Latin America, plummeting 83 percent. High-income countries showed a 10% increase in biodiversity, which was canceled out by a loss in low-income countries. This is despite the fact that high-income countries use five times the ecological resources of low-income countries, which was explained as a result of a process whereby wealthy nations are outsourcing resource depletion to poorer nations, which are suffering the greatest ecosystem losses.[41]
A 2017 study published in PLOS One found that the biomass of insect life in Germany had declined by three-quarters in the last 25 years.[42] Dave Goulson of Sussex University stated that their study suggested that humans "appear to be making vast tracts of land inhospitable to most forms of life, and are currently on course for ecological Armageddon. If we lose the insects then everything is going to collapse."[43]
In 2020 the World Wildlife Fund published a report saying that "biodiversity is being destroyed at a rate unprecedented in human history". The report claims that 68% of the population of the examined species were destroyed in the years 1970 – 2016.[44]
Of 70,000 monitored species, around 48% are experiencing population declines from human activity (in 2023), whereas only 3% have increasing populations.[45][46][47]

Rates of decline in biodiversity in the current sixth mass extinction match or exceed rates of loss in the five previous mass extinction events in the fossil record.[57] Biodiversity loss is in fact "one of the most critical manifestations of the Anthropocene" (since around the 1950s); the continued decline of biodiversity constitutes "an unprecedented threat" to the continued existence of human civilization.[58] The reduction is caused primarily by human impacts, particularly habitat destruction.
Since the Stone Age, species loss has accelerated above the average basal rate, driven by human activity. Estimates of species losses are at a rate 100–10,000 times as fast as is typical in the fossil record.[59]
Loss of biodiversity results in the loss of natural capital that supplies ecosystem goods and services. Species today are being wiped out at a rate 100 to 1,000 times higher than baseline, and the rate of extinctions is increasing. This process destroys the resilience and adaptability of life on Earth.[60]
In 2006, many species were formally classified as rare or endangered or threatened; moreover, scientists have estimated that millions more species are at risk which have not been formally recognized. About 40 percent of the 40,177 species assessed using the IUCN Red List criteria are now listed as threatened with extinction—a total of 16,119.[61] As of late 2022 9251 species were considered part of the IUCN's critically endangered.[62]
Numerous scientists and the IPBES Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services assert that human population growth and overconsumption are the primary factors in this decline.[63][64][65][66][67] However, other scientists have criticized this finding and say that loss of habitat caused by "the growth of commodities for export" is the main driver.[68] A 2025 study found that human activities are responsible for biodiversity loss across all species and ecosystems.[69]
Some studies have however pointed out that habitat destruction for the expansion of agriculture and the overexploitation of wildlife are the more significant drivers of contemporary biodiversity loss, not climate change.[5][6]
Distribution
[edit]
Biodiversity is not evenly distributed, rather it varies greatly across the globe as well as within regions and seasons. Among other factors, the diversity of all living things (biota) depends on temperature, precipitation, altitude, soils, geography and the interactions between other species.[70] The study of the spatial distribution of organisms, species and ecosystems, is the science of biogeography.[71][72]
Diversity consistently measures higher in the tropics and in other localized regions such as the Cape Floristic Region and lower in polar regions generally. Rain forests that have had wet climates for a long time, such as Yasuní National Park in Ecuador, have particularly high biodiversity.[73][74]
There is local biodiversity, which directly impacts daily life, affecting the availability of fresh water, food choices, and fuel sources for humans. Regional biodiversity includes habitats and ecosystems that synergizes and either overlaps or differs on a regional scale. National biodiversity within a country determines the ability for a country to thrive according to its habitats and ecosystems on a national scale. Also, within a country, endangered species are initially supported on a national level then internationally. Ecotourism may be utilized to support the economy and encourages tourists to continue to visit and support species and ecosystems they visit, while they enjoy the available amenities provided. International biodiversity impacts global livelihood, food systems, and health. Problematic pollution, over consumption, and climate change can devastate international biodiversity. Nature-based solutions are a critical tool for a global resolution. Many species are in danger of becoming extinct and need world leaders to be proactive with the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework.
Terrestrial biodiversity is thought to be up to 25 times greater than ocean biodiversity.[75] Forests harbour most of Earth's terrestrial biodiversity. The conservation of the world's biodiversity is thus utterly dependent on the way in which we interact with and use the world's forests.[76] A new method used in 2011, put the total number of species on Earth at 8.7 million, of which 2.1 million were estimated to live in the ocean.[77] However, this estimate seems to under-represent the diversity of microorganisms.[78] Forests provide habitats for 80 percent of amphibian species, 75 percent of bird species and 68 percent of mammal species. About 60 percent of all vascular plants are found in tropical forests. Mangroves provide breeding grounds and nurseries for numerous species of fish and shellfish and help trap sediments that might otherwise adversely affect seagrass beds and coral reefs, which are habitats for many more marine species.[76] Forests span around 4 billion acres (nearly a third of the Earth's land mass) and are home to approximately 80% of the world's biodiversity. About 1 billion hectares are covered by primary forests. Over 700 million hectares of the world's woods are officially protected.[79][80]
The biodiversity of forests varies considerably according to factors such as forest type, geography, climate and soils – in addition to human use.[76] Most forest habitats in temperate regions support relatively few animal and plant species and species that tend to have large geographical distributions, while the montane forests of Africa, South America and Southeast Asia and lowland forests of Australia, coastal Brazil, the Caribbean islands, Central America and insular Southeast Asia have many species with small geographical distributions.[76] Areas with dense human populations and intense agricultural land use, such as Europe, parts of Bangladesh, China, India and North America, are less intact in terms of their biodiversity. Northern Africa, southern Australia, coastal Brazil, Madagascar and South Africa, are also identified as areas with striking losses in biodiversity intactness.[76] European forests in EU and non-EU nations comprise more than 30% of Europe's land mass (around 227 million hectares), representing an almost 10% growth since 1990.[81][82]
Latitudinal gradients
[edit]Generally, there is an increase in biodiversity from the poles to the tropics. Thus localities at lower latitudes have more species than localities at higher latitudes. This is often referred to as the latitudinal gradient in species diversity. Several ecological factors may contribute to the gradient, but the ultimate factor behind many of them is the greater mean temperature at the equator compared to that at the poles.[83]
Even though terrestrial biodiversity declines from the equator to the poles,[3] some studies claim that this characteristic is unverified in aquatic ecosystems, especially in marine ecosystems.[84] The latitudinal distribution of parasites does not appear to follow this rule.[71] Also, in terrestrial ecosystems the soil bacterial diversity has been shown to be highest in temperate climatic zones,[85] and has been attributed to carbon inputs and habitat connectivity.[86]
In 2016, an alternative hypothesis ("the fractal biodiversity") was proposed to explain the biodiversity latitudinal gradient.[87] In this study, the species pool size and the fractal nature of ecosystems were combined to clarify some general patterns of this gradient. This hypothesis considers temperature, moisture, and net primary production (NPP) as the main variables of an ecosystem niche and as the axis of the ecological hypervolume. In this way, it is possible to build fractal hyper volumes, whose fractal dimension rises to three moving towards the equator.[88]
Biodiversity Hotspots
[edit]A biodiversity hotspot is a region with a high level of endemic species that have experienced great habitat loss.[89] The term hotspot was introduced in 1988 by Norman Myers.[90][91][92][93] While hotspots are spread all over the world, the majority are forest areas and most are located in the tropics.[94]
Brazil's Atlantic Forest is considered one such hotspot, containing roughly 20,000 plant species, 1,350 vertebrates and millions of insects, about half of which occur nowhere else.[95][96] The island of Madagascar and India are also particularly notable. Colombia is characterized by high biodiversity, with the highest rate of species by area unit worldwide and it has the largest number of endemics (species that are not found naturally anywhere else) of any country. About 10% of the species of the Earth can be found in Colombia, including over 1,900 species of bird, more than in Europe and North America combined, Colombia has 10% of the world's mammals species, 14% of the amphibian species and 18% of the bird species of the world.[97] Madagascar dry deciduous forests and lowland rainforests possess a high ratio of endemism.[98][99] Since the island separated from mainland Africa 66 million years ago, many species and ecosystems have evolved independently.[100] Indonesia's 17,000 islands cover 735,355 square miles (1,904,560 km2) and contain 10% of the world's flowering plants, 12% of mammals and 17% of reptiles, amphibians and birds—along with nearly 240 million people.[101] Many regions of high biodiversity and/or endemism arise from specialized habitats which require unusual adaptations, for example, alpine environments in high mountains, or Northern European peat bogs.[99]
Accurately measuring differences in biodiversity can be difficult. Selection bias amongst researchers may contribute to biased empirical research for modern estimates of biodiversity. In 1768, Rev. Gilbert White succinctly observed of his Selborne, Hampshire "all nature is so full, that that district produces the most variety which is the most examined."[102]
Evolution over geologic timeframes
[edit]Biodiversity is the result of 3.5 billion years of evolution.[103] The origin of life has not been established by science, however, some evidence suggests that life may already have been well-established only a few hundred million years after the formation of the Earth. Until approximately 2.5 billion years ago, all life consisted of microorganisms – archaea, bacteria, and single-celled protozoans and protists.[78]
−4500 — – — – −4000 — – — – −3500 — – — – −3000 — – — – −2500 — – — – −2000 — – — – −1500 — – — – −1000 — – — – −500 — – — – 0 — |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||

Biodiversity grew fast during the Phanerozoic (the last 540 million years), especially during the so-called Cambrian explosion—a period during which nearly every phylum of multicellular organisms first appeared.[105] However, recent studies suggest that this diversification had started earlier, at least in the Ediacaran, and that it continued in the Ordovician.[106] Over the next 400 million years or so, invertebrate diversity showed little overall trend and vertebrate diversity shows an overall exponential trend.[10] This dramatic rise in diversity was marked by periodic, massive losses of diversity classified as mass extinction events.[10] A significant loss occurred in anamniotic limbed vertebrates when rainforests collapsed in the Carboniferous,[107] but amniotes seem to have been little affected by this event; their diversification slowed down later, around the Asselian/Sakmarian boundary, in the early Cisuralian (Early Permian), about 293 Ma ago.[108] The worst was the Permian-Triassic extinction event, 251 million years ago.[109][110] Vertebrates took 30 million years to recover from this event.[111]
The most recent major mass extinction event, the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event, occurred 66 million years ago. This period has attracted more attention than others because it resulted in the extinction of the non-avian dinosaurs, which were represented by many lineages at the end of the Maastrichtian, just before that extinction event. However, many other taxa were affected by this crisis, which affected even marine taxa, such as ammonites, which also became extinct around that time.[112]
The biodiversity of the past is called Paleobiodiversity. The fossil record suggests that the last few million years featured the greatest biodiversity in history.[10] However, not all scientists support this view, since there is uncertainty as to how strongly the fossil record is biased by the greater availability and preservation of recent geologic sections.[113] Some scientists believe that corrected for sampling artifacts, modern biodiversity may not be much different from biodiversity 300 million years ago,[105] whereas others consider the fossil record reasonably reflective of the diversification of life.[114][10] Estimates of the present global macroscopic species diversity vary from 2 million to 100 million, with a best estimate of somewhere near 9 million,[77] the vast majority arthropods.[115] Diversity appears to increase continually in the absence of natural selection.[116]
Diversification
[edit]The existence of a global carrying capacity, limiting the amount of life that can live at once, is debated, as is the question of whether such a limit would also cap the number of species. While records of life in the sea show a logistic pattern of growth, life on land (insects, plants and tetrapods) shows an exponential rise in diversity.[10] As one author states, "Tetrapods have not yet invaded 64 percent of potentially habitable modes and it could be that without human influence the ecological and taxonomic diversity of tetrapods would continue to increase exponentially until most or all of the available eco-space is filled."[10]
It also appears that the diversity continues to increase over time, especially after mass extinctions.[117]
On the other hand, changes through the Phanerozoic correlate much better with the hyperbolic model (widely used in population biology, demography and macrosociology, as well as fossil biodiversity) than with exponential and logistic models. The latter models imply that changes in diversity are guided by a first-order positive feedback (more ancestors, more descendants) and/or a negative feedback arising from resource limitation. Hyperbolic model implies a second-order positive feedback.[118] Differences in the strength of the second-order feedback due to different intensities of interspecific competition might explain the faster rediversification of ammonoids in comparison to bivalves after the end-Permian extinction.[118] The hyperbolic pattern of the world population growth arises from a second-order positive feedback between the population size and the rate of technological growth.[119] The hyperbolic character of biodiversity growth can be similarly accounted for by a feedback between diversity and community structure complexity.[119][120] The similarity between the curves of biodiversity and human population probably comes from the fact that both are derived from the interference of the hyperbolic trend with cyclical and stochastic dynamics.[119][120]
Most biologists agree however that the period since human emergence is part of a new mass extinction, named the Holocene extinction event, caused primarily by the impact humans are having on the environment.[121] It has been argued that the present rate of extinction is sufficient to eliminate most species on the planet Earth within 100 years.[122]
New species are regularly discovered (on average between 5–10,000 new species each year, most of them insects) and many, though discovered, are not yet classified (estimates are that nearly 90% of all arthropods are not yet classified).[115] Most of the terrestrial diversity is found in tropical forests and in general, the land has more species than the ocean; some 8.7 million species may exist on Earth, of which some 2.1 million live in the ocean.[77]
Species diversity in geologic time frames
[edit]It is estimated that 5 to 50 billion species have existed on the planet.[123] Assuming that there may be a maximum of about 50 million species currently alive,[124] it stands to reason that greater than 99% of the planet's species went extinct prior to the evolution of humans.[125] Estimates on the number of Earth's current species range from 10 million to 14 million, of which about 1.2 million have been documented and over 86% have not yet been described.[126] However, a May 2016 scientific report estimates that 1 trillion species are currently on Earth, with only one-thousandth of one percent described.[127] The total amount of related DNA base pairs on Earth is estimated at 5.0 x 1037 and weighs 50 billion tonnes. In comparison, the total mass of the biosphere has been estimated to be as much as four trillion tons of carbon.[128] In July 2016, scientists reported identifying a set of 355 genes from the last universal common ancestor (LUCA) of all organisms living on Earth.[129]
The age of Earth is about 4.54 billion years.[130][131][132] The earliest undisputed evidence of life dates at least from 3.7 billion years ago, during the Eoarchean era after a geological crust started to solidify following the earlier molten Hadean eon.[133][134][135] There are microbial mat fossils found in 3.48 billion-year-old sandstone discovered in Western Australia. Other early physical evidence of a biogenic substance is graphite in 3.7 billion-year-old meta-sedimentary rocks discovered in Western Greenland.[136][137] More recently, in 2015, "remains of biotic life" were found in 4.1 billion-year-old rocks in Western Australia. According to one of the researchers, "If life arose relatively quickly on Earth...then it could be common in the universe."[138]
Role and benefits of biodiversity
[edit]
Ecosystem services
[edit]There have been many claims about biodiversity's effect on the ecosystem services, especially provisioning and regulating services.[139] Some of those claims have been validated, some are incorrect and some lack enough evidence to draw definitive conclusions.[139]
Ecosystem services have been grouped in three types:[139]
- Provisioning services which involve the production of renewable resources (e.g.: food, wood, fresh water)
- Regulating services which are those that lessen environmental change (e.g.: climate regulation, pest/disease control)
- Cultural services represent human value and enjoyment (e.g.: landscape aesthetics, cultural heritage, outdoor recreation and spiritual significance)[140]
Experiments with controlled environments have shown that humans cannot easily build ecosystems to support human needs;[141] for example insect pollination cannot be mimicked, though there have been attempts to create artificial pollinators using unmanned aerial vehicles.[142] The economic activity of pollination alone represented between $2.1–14.6 billion in 2003.[143] Other sources have reported somewhat conflicting results and in 1997 Robert Costanza and his colleagues reported the estimated global value of ecosystem services (not captured in traditional markets) at an average of $33 trillion annually.[144]
Provisioning services
[edit]With regards to provisioning services, greater species diversity has the following benefits:
- Greater species diversity of plants increases fodder yield (synthesis of 271 experimental studies).[72]
- Greater species diversity of plants (i.e. diversity within a single species) increases overall crop yield (synthesis of 575 experimental studies).[145] Although another review of 100 experimental studies reported mixed evidence.[146]
- Greater species diversity of trees increases overall wood production (synthesis of 53 experimental studies).[147] However, there is not enough data to draw a conclusion about the effect of tree trait diversity on wood production.[139]
Regulating services
[edit]With regards to regulating services, greater species diversity has the following benefits:
Greater species diversity
- of fish increases the stability of fisheries yield (synthesis of 8 observational studies)[139]
- of plants increases carbon sequestration, but note that this finding only relates to actual uptake of carbon dioxide and not long-term storage; synthesis of 479 experimental studies)[72]
- of plants increases soil nutrient remineralization (synthesis of 103 experimental studies), increases soil organic matter (synthesis of 85 experimental studies) and decreases disease prevalence on plants (synthesis of 107 experimental studies)[148]
- of natural pest enemies decreases herbivorous pest populations data from two separate reviews; synthesis of 266 experimental and observational studies;[149] Synthesis of 18 observational studies.[150][151] Although another review of 38 experimental studies found mixed support for this claim, suggesting that in cases where mutual intraguild predation occurs, a single predatory species is often more effective[152]
Agriculture
[edit]
Agricultural diversity can be divided into two categories: intraspecific diversity, which includes the genetic variation within a single species, like the potato (Solanum tuberosum) that is composed of many different forms and types (e.g. in the U.S. they might compare russet potatoes with new potatoes or purple potatoes, all different, but all part of the same species, S. tuberosum). The other category of agricultural diversity is called interspecific diversity and refers to the number and types of different species.
Agricultural diversity can also be divided by whether it is 'planned' diversity or 'associated' diversity. This is a functional classification that we impose and not an intrinsic feature of life or diversity. Planned diversity includes the crops which a farmer has encouraged, planted or raised (e.g. crops, covers, symbionts, and livestock, among others), which can be contrasted with the associated diversity that arrives among the crops, uninvited (e.g. herbivores, weed species and pathogens, among others).[153]
Associated biodiversity can be damaging or beneficial. The beneficial associated biodiversity include for instance wild pollinators such as wild bees and syrphid flies that pollinate crops[154] and natural enemies and antagonists to pests and pathogens. Beneficial associated biodiversity occurs abundantly in crop fields and provide multiple ecosystem services such as pest control, nutrient cycling and pollination that support crop production.[155]
Although about 80 percent of humans' food supply comes from just 20 kinds of plants,[156] humans use at least 40,000 species.[157] Earth's surviving biodiversity provides resources for increasing the range of food and other products suitable for human use, although the present extinction rate shrinks that potential.[122]
Human health
[edit]
Biodiversity's relevance to human health is becoming an international political issue, as scientific evidence builds on the global health implications of biodiversity loss.[158][159][160] This issue is closely linked with the issue of climate change,[161] as many of the anticipated health risks of climate change are associated with changes in biodiversity (e.g. changes in populations and distribution of disease vectors, scarcity of fresh water, impacts on agricultural biodiversity and food resources etc.). This is because the species most likely to disappear are those that buffer against infectious disease transmission, while surviving species tend to be the ones that increase disease transmission, such as that of West Nile Virus, Lyme disease and Hantavirus, according to a study done co-authored by Felicia Keesing, an ecologist at Bard College and Drew Harvell, associate director for Environment of the Atkinson Center for a Sustainable Future (ACSF) at Cornell University.[162]
Some of the health issues influenced by biodiversity include dietary health and nutrition security, infectious disease, medical science and medicinal resources, social and psychological health.[163] Biodiversity is also known to have an important role in reducing disaster risk, including rising sea levels. For example, wetland ecosystems along coastal communities serve as excellent water filtration systems, storage, and ultimately create a buffer region between the ocean and mainland neighborhoods in order to prevent water reaching these communities under climate change pressures or storm storages. Other examples of diverse species or organisms are present around the world, offering their resourceful utilities to provide protection of human survival.[164]
Biodiversity provides critical support for drug discovery and the availability of medicinal resources.[165][166] A significant proportion of drugs are derived, directly or indirectly, from biological sources: at least 50% of the pharmaceutical compounds on the US market are derived from plants, animals and microorganisms, while about 80% of the world population depends on medicines from nature (used in either modern or traditional medical practice) for primary healthcare.[159] Only a tiny fraction of wild species has been investigated for medical potential.
Marine ecosystems are particularly important, especially their chemical and physical properties that have paved the way for numerous pharmaceutical achievements; the immense diversity of marine organisms have led to scientific discoveries including medical treatments to cancer, viral bacteria, AIDS, etc.[167] This process of bioprospecting can increase biodiversity loss, as well as violating the laws of the communities and states from which the resources are taken.[168][169][170]
Business and industry
[edit]According to the Boston Consulting Group, in 2021, the economic value that biodiversity has on society comes down to four definable terms: regulation, culture, habitat, and provisioning. To sum these up in a relatively short manner, biodiversity helps maintain habitat and animal functions that provide considerable amounts of resources that benefit the economy.[171]
Biodiversity's economic resources are worth at around $150 trillion annually which is roughly twice the world's GDP. The loss of biodiversity is actually harming the GDP of the world by costing an estimated $5 trillion annually.[171]
Business supply chains rely heavily on ecosystems remaining relatively maintained and nurtured. A disruption to these supply chains would negatively impact many businesses that would end up costing them more than what they are gaining.[172]
Cultural and aesthetic value
[edit]
Philosophically it could be argued that biodiversity has intrinsic aesthetic and spiritual value to mankind in and of itself. This idea can be used as a counterweight to the notion that tropical forests and other ecological realms are only worthy of conservation because of the services they provide.[173]
Biodiversity also affords many non-material benefits including spiritual and aesthetic values, knowledge systems and education.[59]
Measuring biodiversity
[edit]Analytical limits
[edit]Less than 1% of all species that have been described have been studied beyond noting their existence.[180] The vast majority of Earth's species are microbial. Contemporary biodiversity physics is "firmly fixated on the visible [macroscopic] world".[181] For example, microbial life is metabolically and environmentally more diverse than multicellular life (see e.g., extremophile). "On the tree of life, based on analyses of small-subunit ribosomal RNA, visible life consists of barely noticeable twigs. The inverse relationship of size and population recurs higher on the evolutionary ladder—to a first approximation, all multicellular species on Earth are insects".[182] Insect extinction rates are high—supporting the Holocene extinction hypothesis.[183][55]
Biodiversity changes (other than losses)
[edit]Natural seasonal variations
[edit]Biodiversity naturally varies due to seasonal shifts. Spring's arrival enhances biodiversity as numerous species breed and feed, while winter's onset temporarily reduces it as some insects perish and migrating animals leave. Additionally, the seasonal fluctuation in plant and invertebrate populations influences biodiversity.[184]
Introduced and invasive species
[edit]
Barriers such as large rivers, seas, oceans, mountains and deserts encourage diversity by enabling independent evolution on either side of the barrier, via the process of allopatric speciation. The term invasive species is applied to species that breach the natural barriers that would normally keep them constrained. Without barriers, such species occupy new territory, often supplanting native species by occupying their niches, or by using resources that would normally sustain native species.
Species are increasingly being moved by humans (on purpose and accidentally). Some studies say that diverse ecosystems are more resilient and resist invasive plants and animals.[185] Many studies cite effects of invasive species on natives,[186] but not extinctions.
Invasive species seem to increase local (alpha diversity) diversity, which decreases turnover of diversity (beta diversity). Overall gamma diversity may be lowered because species are going extinct because of other causes,[187] but even some of the most insidious invaders (e.g.: Dutch elm disease, emerald ash borer, chestnut blight in North America) have not caused their host species to become extinct. Extirpation, population decline and homogenization of regional biodiversity are much more common. Human activities have frequently been the cause of invasive species circumventing their barriers,[188] by introducing them for food and other purposes. Human activities therefore allow species to migrate to new areas (and thus become invasive) occurred on time scales much shorter than historically have been required for a species to extend its range.
At present, several countries have already imported so many exotic species, particularly agricultural and ornamental plants, that their indigenous fauna/flora may be outnumbered. For example, the introduction of kudzu from Southeast Asia to Canada and the United States has threatened biodiversity in certain areas.[189] Another example are pines, which have invaded forests, shrublands and grasslands in the southern hemisphere.[190]
Hybridization and genetic pollution
[edit]
Endemic species can be threatened with extinction[191] through the process of genetic pollution, i.e. uncontrolled hybridization, introgression and genetic swamping. Genetic pollution leads to homogenization or replacement of local genomes as a result of either a numerical and/or fitness advantage of an introduced species.[192]
Hybridization and introgression are side-effects of introduction and invasion. These phenomena can be especially detrimental to rare species that come into contact with more abundant ones. The abundant species can interbreed with the rare species, swamping its gene pool. This problem is not always apparent from morphological (outward appearance) observations alone. Some degree of gene flow is normal adaptation and not all gene and genotype constellations can be preserved. However, hybridization with or without introgression may, nevertheless, threaten a rare species' existence.[193][194]
Conservation
[edit]
Conservation biology matured in the mid-20th century as ecologists, naturalists and other scientists began to research and address issues pertaining to global biodiversity declines.[196][197][198]
The conservation ethic advocates management of natural resources for the purpose of sustaining biodiversity in species, ecosystems, the evolutionary process and human culture and society.[51][196][198][199][200]
Conservation biology is reforming around strategic plans to protect biodiversity.[196][201][202][203] Preserving global biodiversity is a priority in strategic conservation plans that are designed to engage public policy and concerns affecting local, regional and global scales of communities, ecosystems and cultures.[204] Action plans identify ways of sustaining human well-being, employing natural capital, macroeconomic policies including economic incentives, and ecosystem services.[205][206]
In the EU Directive 1999/22/EC zoos are described as having a role in the preservation of the biodiversity of wildlife animals by conducting research or participation in breeding programs.[207]
Protection and restoration techniques
[edit]Removal of exotic species will allow the species that they have negatively impacted to recover their ecological niches. Exotic species that have become pests can be identified taxonomically (e.g., with Digital Automated Identification SYstem (DAISY), using the barcode of life).[208][209] Removal is practical only given large groups of individuals due to the economic cost.
As sustainable populations of the remaining native species in an area become assured, "missing" species that are candidates for reintroduction can be identified using databases such as the Encyclopedia of Life and the Global Biodiversity Information Facility.
- Biodiversity banking places a monetary value on biodiversity. One example is the Australian Native Vegetation Management Framework.[210]
- Gene banks are collections of specimens and genetic material. Some banks intend to reintroduce banked species to the ecosystem (e.g., via tree nurseries).[211]
- Reduction and better targeting of pesticides allows more species to survive in agricultural and urbanized areas.
- Location-specific approaches may be less useful for protecting migratory species. One approach is to create wildlife corridors that correspond to the animals' movements. National and other boundaries can complicate corridor creation.[212]
Protected areas
[edit]
Protected areas, including forest reserves and biosphere reserves, serve many functions including for affording protection to wild animals and their habitat.[213] Protected areas have been set up all over the world with the specific aim of protecting and conserving plants and animals. Some scientists have called on the global community to designate as protected areas of 30 percent of the planet by 2030, and 50 percent by 2050, in order to mitigate biodiversity loss from anthropogenic causes.[214][215] The target of protecting 30% of the area of the planet by the year 2030 (30 by 30) was adopted by almost 200 countries in the 2022 United Nations Biodiversity Conference. At the moment of adoption (December 2022) 17% of land territory and 10% of ocean territory were protected.[216] In a study published 4 September 2020 in Science Advances researchers mapped out regions that can help meet critical conservation and climate goals.[217]
Protected areas safeguard nature and cultural resources and contribute to livelihoods, particularly at local level. There are over 238 563 designated protected areas worldwide, equivalent to 14.9 percent of the earth's land surface, varying in their extension, level of protection, and type of management (IUCN, 2018).[218]
The benefits of protected areas extend beyond their immediate environment and time. In addition to conserving nature, protected areas are crucial for securing the long-term delivery of ecosystem services. They provide numerous benefits including the conservation of genetic resources for food and agriculture, the provision of medicine and health benefits, the provision of water, recreation and tourism, and for acting as a buffer against disaster. Increasingly, there is acknowledgement of the wider socioeconomic values of these natural ecosystems and of the ecosystem services they can provide.[219]
National parks and wildlife sanctuaries
[edit]A national park is a large natural or near natural area set aside to protect large-scale ecological processes, which also provide a foundation for environmentally and culturally compatible, spiritual, scientific, educational, recreational and visitor opportunities. These areas are selected by governments or private organizations to protect natural biodiversity along with its underlying ecological structure and supporting environmental processes, and to promote education and recreation. The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), and its World Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA), has defined "National Park" as its Category II type of protected areas.[220]
Wildlife sanctuaries are areas of either shelter for animals who are unable to live in the wild on their own, or they are temporary rehabilitation centers for wildlife to improve in their overall health and wellbeing.[221]
Both of these serve as places in which biodiversity can be preserved rather than harmed. According to an article published in the National Park Service website, national parks aim their resources at maintaining animal and habitat integrity through conservation and preservation of their ecosystems. This along with educating the general public on wildlife functions, the aim for an increase in biodiversity is one of many goals trying to be focused on through national parks.[222]
Forest protected areas
[edit]
Forest protected areas are a subset of all protected areas in which a significant portion of the area is forest.[76] This may be the whole or only a part of the protected area.[76] Globally, 18 percent of the world's forest area, or more than 700 million hectares, fall within legally established protected areas such as national parks, conservation areas and game reserves.[76]
There is an estimated 726 million ha of forest in protected areas worldwide. Of the six major world regions, South America has the highest share of forests in protected areas, 31 percent.[223] The forests play a vital role in harboring more than 45,000 floral and 81,000 faunal species of which 5150 floral and 1837 faunal species are endemic.[224] In addition, there are 60,065 different tree species in the world.[225] Plant and animal species confined to a specific geographical area are called endemic species.[226]
In forest reserves, rights to activities like hunting and grazing are sometimes given to communities living on the fringes of the forest, who sustain their livelihood partially or wholly from forest resources or products.
Approximately 50 million hectares (or 24%) of European forest land is protected for biodiversity and landscape protection. Forests allocated for soil, water, and other ecosystem services encompass around 72 million hectares (32% of European forest area).[227][228]
Role of society
[edit]Transformative change
[edit]In 2019, a summary for policymakers of the largest, most comprehensive study to date of biodiversity and ecosystem services, the Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, was published by the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). It stated that "the state of nature has deteriorated at an unprecedented and accelerating rate". To fix the problem, humanity will need a transformative change, including sustainable agriculture, reductions in consumption and waste, fishing quotas and collaborative water management.[229][230]
The concept of nature-positive is playing a role in mainstreaming the goals of the Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) for biodiversity.[231] The aim of mainstreaming is to embed biodiversity considerations into public and private practice to conserve and sustainably use biodiversity on global and local levels.[232] The concept of nature-positive refers to the societal goal to halt and reverse biodiversity loss, measured from a baseline of 2020 levels, and to achieve full so-called "nature recovery" by 2050.[233]
Citizen science
[edit]Citizen science, also known as public participation in scientific research, has been widely used in environmental sciences and is particularly popular in a biodiversity-related context. It has been used to enable scientists to involve the general public in biodiversity research, thereby enabling the scientists to collect data that they would otherwise not have been able to obtain.[234]
Volunteer observers have made significant contributions to on-the-ground knowledge about biodiversity, and recent improvements in technology have helped increase the flow and quality of occurrences from citizen sources. A 2016 study published in Biological Conservation[235] registers the massive contributions that citizen scientists already make to data mediated by the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF). Despite some limitations of the dataset-level analysis, it is clear that nearly half of all occurrence records shared through the GBIF network come from datasets with significant volunteer contributions. Recording and sharing observations are enabled by several global-scale platforms, including iNaturalist and eBird.[236][237]
Legal status
[edit]
International
[edit]- United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (1992) and Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety;
- UN BBNJ (High Seas Treaty) 2023 Intergovernmental conference on an international legally binding instrument under the UNCLOS on the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity of areas beyond national jurisdiction (GA resolution 72/249)
- Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES);
- Ramsar Convention (Wetlands);
- Bonn Convention on Migratory Species;
- UNESCO Convention concerning the Protection of the World's Cultural and Natural Heritage (indirectly by protecting biodiversity habitats)
- UNESCO Global Geoparks
- Regional Conventions such as the Apia Convention
- Bilateral agreements such as the Japan-Australia Migratory Bird Agreement.
Global agreements such as the Convention on Biological Diversity, give "sovereign national rights over biological resources" (not property).[238] The agreements commit countries to "conserve biodiversity", "develop resources for sustainability" and "share the benefits" resulting from their use. Biodiverse countries that allow bioprospecting or collection of natural products, expect a share of the benefits rather than allowing the individual or institution that discovers/exploits the resource to capture them privately. Bioprospecting can become a type of biopiracy when such principles are not respected.[239]
Sovereignty principles can rely upon what is better known as Access and Benefit Sharing Agreements (ABAs).[240] The Convention on Biodiversity implies informed consent between the source country and the collector, to establish which resource will be used and for what and to settle on a fair agreement on benefit sharing.
On the 19 of December 2022, during the 2022 United Nations Biodiversity Conference every country on earth, with the exception of the United States and the Holy See, signed onto the agreement which includes protecting 30% of land and oceans by 2030 (30 by 30) and 22 other targets intended to reduce biodiversity loss.[216][241][242] The agreement includes also recovering 30% of earth degraded ecosystems and increasing funding for biodiversity issues.[243]
European Union
[edit]In May 2020, the European Union published its Biodiversity Strategy for 2030. The biodiversity strategy is an essential part of the climate change mitigation strategy of the European Union. From the 25% of the European budget that will go to fight climate change, large part will go to restore biodiversity[203] and nature based solutions.
The EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 include the next targets:
- Protect 30% of the sea territory and 30% of the land territory especially Old-growth forests.
- Plant 3 billion trees by 2030.
- Restore at least 25,000 kilometers of rivers, so they will become free flowing.
- Reduce the use of Pesticides by 50% by 2030.
- Increase Organic farming. In linked EU program From Farm to Fork it is said, that the target is making 25% of EU agriculture organic, by 2030.[244]
- Increase biodiversity in agriculture.
- Give €20 billion per year to the issue and make it part of the business practice.
Approximately half of the global GDP depend on nature. In Europe many parts of the economy that generate trillions of euros per year depend on nature. The benefits of Natura 2000 alone in Europe are €200 – €300 billion per year.[245]
National level laws
[edit]Biodiversity is taken into account in some political and judicial decisions:
- The relationship between law and ecosystems is very ancient and has consequences for biodiversity. It is related to private and public property rights. It can define protection for threatened ecosystems, but also some rights and duties (for example, fishing and hunting rights).[246]
- Law regarding species is more recent. It defines species that must be protected because they may be threatened by extinction. The U.S. Endangered Species Act is an example of an attempt to address the "law and species" issue.
- Laws regarding gene pools are only about a century old.[247] Domestication and plant breeding methods are not new, but advances in genetic engineering have led to tighter laws covering distribution of genetically modified organisms, gene patents and process patents.[248]
Uniform approval for use of biodiversity as a legal standard has not been achieved, however. Bosselman argues that biodiversity should not be used as a legal standard, claiming that the remaining areas of scientific uncertainty cause unacceptable administrative waste and increase litigation without promoting preservation goals.[249]
India passed the Biological Diversity Act in 2002 for the conservation of biological diversity in India. The Act also provides mechanisms for equitable sharing of benefits from the use of traditional biological resources and knowledge.
History of the term
[edit]- 1916 – The term biological diversity was used first by J. Arthur Harris in "The Variable Desert", Scientific American: "The bare statement that the region contains a flora rich in genera and species and of diverse geographic origin or affinity is entirely inadequate as a description of its real biological diversity."[250]
- 1967 – Raymond F. Dasmann used the term biological diversity in reference to the richness of living nature that conservationists should protect in his book A Different Kind of Country.[251][252]
- 1974 – The term natural diversity was introduced by John Terborgh.[253]
- 1980 – Thomas Lovejoy introduced the term biological diversity to the scientific community in a book.[254] It rapidly became commonly used.[255]
- 1986 – According to Edward O. Wilson, the contracted form biodiversity was coined by W. G. Rosen: "The National Forum on BioDiversity [held on September 21–24, 1986]... was conceived by Walter G. Rosen ... he introduced the term biodiversity".[256][257][258][259]
- 1988 to Present – The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) Ad Hoc Working Group of Experts on Biological Diversity in began working in November 1988, leading to the publication of the draft Convention on Biological Diversity in May 1992. Since this time, there have been 16 Conferences of the Parties (COPs) to discuss potential global political responses to biodiversity loss. Most recently COP 16 in Cali, Colombia in 2024.[260]
See also
[edit]References
[edit]- ^ Faith, Daniel P. (1992). "Conservation evaluation and phylogenetic diversity". Biological Conservation. 61 (1): 1–10. Bibcode:1992BCons..61....1F. doi:10.1016/0006-3207(92)91201-3.
- ^ Pillay, Rajeev; Venter, Michelle; Aragon-Osejo, Jose; González-del-Pliego, Pamela; Hansen, Andrew J; Watson, James EM; Venter, Oscar (February 2022). "Tropical forests are home to over half of the world's vertebrate species". Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. 20 (1): 10–15. Bibcode:2022FrEE...20...10P. doi:10.1002/fee.2420. PMC 9293027. PMID 35873358.
- ^ a b Hillebrand, Helmut (February 2004). "On the Generality of the Latitudinal Diversity Gradient". The American Naturalist. 163 (2): 192–211. Bibcode:2004ANat..163..192H. doi:10.1086/381004. PMID 14970922.
- ^ a b Gabriel, Sigmar (9 March 2007). "30% of all species lost by 2050". BBC News.
- ^ a b Ketcham, Christopher (3 December 2022). "Addressing Climate Change Will Not "Save the Planet"". The Intercept. Retrieved 8 December 2022.
- ^ a b Caro, Tim; Rowe, Zeke; Berger, Joel; Wholey, Philippa; Dobson, Andrew (May 2022). "An inconvenient misconception: Climate change is not the principal driver of biodiversity loss". Conservation Letters. 15 (3). Bibcode:2022ConL...15E2868C. doi:10.1111/conl.12868.
- ^ Brook, Barry W.; Bowman, David M. J. S. (April 2004). "The uncertain blitzkrieg of Pleistocene megafauna". Journal of Biogeography. 31 (4): 517–523. Bibcode:2004JBiog..31..517B. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2699.2003.01028.x.
- ^ Tor-Björn Larsson (2001). Biodiversity evaluation tools for European forests. Wiley-Blackwell. p. 178. ISBN 978-87-16-16434-6. Retrieved 28 June 2011.
- ^ Davis. Intro To Env Engg (Sie), 4E. McGraw-Hill Education (India) Pvt Ltd. p. 4. ISBN 978-0-07-067117-1. Retrieved 28 June 2011.
- ^ a b c d e f g h Sahney, S.; Benton, M.J.; Ferry, Paul (2010). "Links between global taxonomic diversity, ecological diversity and the expansion of vertebrates on land". Biology Letters. 6 (4): 544–547. doi:10.1098/rsbl.2009.1024. PMC 2936204. PMID 20106856.
- ^ Campbell, AK (2003). "Save those molecules: molecular biodiversity and life". Journal of Applied Ecology. 40 (2): 193–203. Bibcode:2003JApEc..40..193C. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2664.2003.00803.x.
- ^ Lefcheck, Jon (20 October 2014). "What is functional diversity, and why do we care?". sample(ECOLOGY). Retrieved 22 December 2015.
- ^ Walker, Brian H. (1992). "Biodiversity and Ecological Redundancy". Conservation Biology. 6 (1): 18–23. Bibcode:1992ConBi...6...18W. doi:10.1046/j.1523-1739.1992.610018.x. ISSN 1523-1739.
- ^ "Biodiversity". www.who.int. Retrieved 3 March 2025.
- ^ Mora, Camilo; Tittensor, Derek P.; Adl, Sina; Simpson, Alastair G. B.; Worm, Boris; Mace, Georgina M. (23 August 2011). "How Many Species Are There on Earth and in the Ocean?". PLOS Biology. 9 (8) e1001127. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1001127. PMC 3160336. PMID 21886479.
- ^ Wilson, J. Bastow; Peet, Robert K.; Dengler, Jürgen; Pärtel, Meelis (1 August 2012). "Plant species richness: the world records". Journal of Vegetation Science. 23 (4): 796–802. Bibcode:2012JVegS..23..796W. doi:10.1111/j.1654-1103.2012.01400.x.
- ^ Appeltans, W.; Ahyong, S. T.; Anderson, G.; Angel, M. V.; Artois, T.; et al. (2012). "The Magnitude of Global Marine Species Diversity". Current Biology. 22 (23): 2189–2202. Bibcode:2012CBio...22.2189A. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2012.09.036. hdl:1942/14524. PMID 23159596.
- ^ "Numbers of Insects (Species and Individuals)". Smithsonian Institution. Archived from the original on 15 January 2024.
- ^ Galus, Christine (5 March 2007). "Protection de la biodiversité: un inventaire difficile". Le Monde (in French). Archived from the original on 1 April 2023.
- ^ Cheung, Louisa (31 July 2006). "Thousands of microbes in one gulp". BBC NEWS. Archived from the original on 23 December 2022.
- ^ Hawksworth, D. L. (24 July 2012). "Global species numbers of fungi: are tropical studies and molecular approaches contributing to a more robust estimate?". Biodiversity and Conservation. 21 (9): 2425–2433. Bibcode:2012BiCon..21.2425H. doi:10.1007/s10531-012-0335-x.
- ^ Hawksworth, D (2001). "The magnitude of fungal diversity: The 1.5 million species estimate revisited". Mycological Research. 105 (12): 1422–1432. doi:10.1017/S0953756201004725.
- ^ "Acari at University of Michigan Museum of Zoology Web Page". Insects.ummz.lsa.umich.edu. 10 November 2003. Retrieved 21 June 2009.
- ^ "Fact Sheet – Expedition Overview" (PDF). J. Craig Venter Institute. Archived from the original (PDF) on 29 June 2010. Retrieved 29 August 2010.
- ^ Mirsky, Steve (21 March 2007). "Naturally Speaking: Finding Nature's Treasure Trove with the Global Ocean Sampling Expedition; and Natural Products Chemistry". Scientific American.
- ^ Gross, Liza (13 March 2007). "Untapped Bounty: Sampling the Seas to Survey Microbial Biodiversity". PLOS Biology. 5 (3) e85. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0050085. PMC 1821062. PMID 20076663.
- ^ McKie, Robin (25 September 2005). "Discovery of new species and extermination at high rate". The Guardian. London.
- ^ Bautista, Luis M.; Pantoja, Juan Carlos (2005). "What species should we study next?". Bulletin of the British Ecological Society. 36 (4): 27–28. hdl:10261/43928.
- ^ "Living Planet Index, World". Our World in Data. 13 October 2022. Archived from the original on 8 October 2023.
Data source: World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and Zoological Society of London
- ^ Whiting, Kate (17 October 2022). "6 charts that show the state of biodiversity and nature loss – and how we can go 'nature positive'". World Economic Forum. Archived from the original on 25 September 2023.
- ^ Regional data from "How does the Living Planet Index vary by region?". Our World in Data. 13 October 2022. Archived from the original on 20 September 2023.
Data source: Living Planet Report (2022). World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and Zoological Society of London. –
- ^ a b Reid, Walter V. (1995). "Reversing the loss of biodiversity: An overview of international measures". Arid Lands Newsletter. Ag.arizona.edu.
- ^ Pimm, Stuart L.; Russell, Gareth J.; Gittleman, John L.; Brooks, Thomas M. (21 July 1995). "The Future of Biodiversity". Science. 269 (5222): 347–350. Bibcode:1995Sci...269..347P. doi:10.1126/science.269.5222.347. PMID 17841251.
- ^ "The Statistics of Biodiversity Loss [2020 WWF Report]". Earth.Org. Retrieved 4 July 2024.
- ^ Carrington D (2 February 2021). "Economics of biodiversity review: what are the recommendations?". The Guardian. Retrieved 17 December 2021.
- ^ a b Dasgupta, Partha (2021). "The Economics of Biodiversity: The Dasgupta Review Headline Messages" (PDF). UK government. p. 1. Retrieved 16 December 2021.
Biodiversity is declining faster than at any time in human history. Current extinction rates, for example, are around 100 to 1,000 times higher than the baseline rate, and they are increasing.
- ^ De Vos, Jurriaan M.; Joppa, Lucas N.; Gittleman, John L.; Stephens, Patrick R.; Pimm, Stuart L. (April 2015). "Estimating the normal background rate of species extinction" (PDF). Conservation Biology. 29 (2): 452–462. Bibcode:2015ConBi..29..452D. doi:10.1111/cobi.12380. PMID 25159086.
- ^ Ceballos G, Ehrlich PR, Raven PH (June 2020). "Vertebrates on the brink as indicators of biological annihilation and the sixth mass extinction". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 117 (24): 13596–13602. Bibcode:2020PNAS..11713596C. doi:10.1073/pnas.1922686117. PMC 7306750. PMID 32482862.
- ^ "Researches find threat from biodiversity loss equals climate change threat". Winnipeg Free Press. 7 June 2012.
- ^ Living Planet Report 2016 Risk and resilience in a new era (PDF) (Report). World Wildlife Fund International. 2016. Archived (PDF) from the original on 7 August 2021. Retrieved 20 July 2022.
- ^ Living Planet Report 2014 (PDF), World Wildlife Fund, archived from the original (PDF) on 6 October 2014, retrieved 4 October 2014
- ^ Hallmann, Caspar A.; Sorg, Martin; Jongejans, Eelke; Siepel, Henk; Hofland, Nick; Schwan, Heinz; Stenmans, Werner; Müller, Andreas; Sumser, Hubert; Hörren, Thomas; Goulson, Dave (18 October 2017). "More than 75 percent decline over 27 years in total flying insect biomass in protected areas". PLOS ONE. 12 (10) e0185809. Bibcode:2017PLoSO..1285809H. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0185809. PMC 5646769. PMID 29045418.
- ^ Carrington, Damian (18 October 2017). "Warning of 'ecological Armageddon' after dramatic plunge in insect numbers". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 11 July 2022. Retrieved 20 July 2022.
- ^ Briggs, Helen (10 September 2020). "Wildlife in 'catastrophic decline' due to human destruction, scientists warn". BBC. Retrieved 3 December 2020.
- ^ "Biodiversity: Almost half of animals in decline, research shows". BBC. 23 May 2023. Retrieved 10 June 2023.
- ^ Finn, Catherine; Grattarola, Florencia; Pincheira-Donoso, Daniel (2023). "More losers than winners: investigating Anthropocene defaunation through the diversity of population trends". Biological Reviews. 98 (5): 1732–1748. doi:10.1111/brv.12974. PMID 37189305.
- ^ Paddison, Laura (22 May 2023). "Global loss of wildlife is 'significantly more alarming' than previously thought, according to a new study". CNN. Retrieved 10 June 2023.
- ^ Vignieri, S. (25 July 2014). "Vanishing fauna (Special issue)". Science. 345 (6195): 392–412. Bibcode:2014Sci...345..392V. doi:10.1126/science.345.6195.392. PMID 25061199.
- ^ "Strong evidence shows Sixth Mass Extinction of global biodiversity in progress". EurekAlert!. 13 January 2022. Retrieved 17 February 2022.
- ^ Dirzo, Rodolfo; Young, Hillary S.; Galetti, Mauro; Ceballos, Gerardo; Isaac, Nick J. B.; Collen, Ben (25 July 2014). "Defaunation in the Anthropocene". Science. 345 (6195): 401–406. Bibcode:2014Sci...345..401D. doi:10.1126/science.1251817. PMID 25061202.
- ^ a b Wake D. B.; Vredenburg V. T. (2008). "Are we in the midst of the sixth mass extinction? A view from the world of amphibians". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 105 (Suppl 1): 11466–11473. Bibcode:2008PNAS..10511466W. doi:10.1073/pnas.0801921105. PMC 2556420. PMID 18695221.
- ^ Koh, Lian Pin; Dunn, Robert R.; Sodhi, Navjot S.; Colwell, Robert K.; Proctor, Heather C.; Smith, Vincent S. (10 September 2004). "Species Coextinctions and the Biodiversity Crisis". Science. 305 (5690): 1632–1634. Bibcode:2004Sci...305.1632K. doi:10.1126/science.1101101. PMID 15361627.
- ^ McCallum, Malcolm L. (September 2007). "Amphibian Decline or Extinction? Current Declines Dwarf Background Extinction Rate". Journal of Herpetology. 41 (3): 483–491. doi:10.1670/0022-1511(2007)41[483:ADOECD]2.0.CO;2.
- ^ Jackson, J. B. C. (2008). "Colloquium Paper: Ecological extinction and evolution in the brave new ocean". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 105 (Suppl 1): 11458–11465. Bibcode:2008PNAS..10511458J. doi:10.1073/pnas.0802812105. PMC 2556419. PMID 18695220.
- ^ a b Dunn, Robert R. (August 2005). "Modern Insect Extinctions, the Neglected Majority". Conservation Biology. 19 (4): 1030–1036. Bibcode:2005ConBi..19.1030D. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2005.00078.x.
- ^ Ceballos, Gerardo; Ehrlich, Paul R.; Barnosky, Anthony D.; García, Andrés; Pringle, Robert M.; Palmer, Todd M. (2015). "Accelerated modern human–induced species losses: Entering the sixth mass extinction". Science Advances. 1 (5) e1400253. Bibcode:2015SciA....1E0253C. doi:10.1126/sciadv.1400253. PMC 4640606. PMID 26601195.
- ^ [48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56]
- ^ Dirzo, Rodolfo; Ceballos, Gerardo; Ehrlich, Paul R. (2022). "Circling the drain: the extinction crisis and the future of humanity". Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B. 377 (1857). doi:10.1098/rstb.2021.0378. PMC 9237743. PMID 35757873.
- ^ a b Hassan, Rashid M.; et al. (2006). Ecosystems and human well-being: current state and trends: findings of the Condition and Trends Working Group of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Island Press. p. 105. ISBN 978-1-55963-228-7.
- ^ UK Government Official Documents, February 2021, "The Economics of Biodiversity: The Dasgupta Review Headline Messages" p. 1
- ^ Lovett, Richard A. (2 May 2006). "Endangered Species List Expands to 16,000". National Geographic. Archived from the original on 5 August 2017.
- ^ "IUCN Red List of Threatened Species".
- ^ Stokstad, Erik (6 May 2019). "Landmark analysis documents the alarming global decline of nature". Science. doi:10.1126/science.aax9287.
For the first time at a global scale, the report has ranked the causes of damage. Topping the list, changes in land use—principally agriculture—that have destroyed habitat. Second, hunting and other kinds of exploitation. These are followed by climate change, pollution, and invasive species, which are being spread by trade and other activities. Climate change will likely overtake the other threats in the next decades, the authors note. Driving these threats are the growing human population, which has doubled since 1970 to 7.6 billion, and consumption. (Per capita of use of materials is up 15% over the past 5 decades.)
- ^ Pimm, S. L.; Jenkins, C. N.; Abell, R.; Brooks, T. M.; Gittleman, J. L.; Joppa, L. N.; Raven, P. H.; Roberts, C. M.; Sexton, J. O. (30 May 2014). "The biodiversity of species and their rates of extinction, distribution, and protection". Science. 344 (6187). doi:10.1126/science.1246752. PMID 24876501.
- ^ Cafaro, Philip; Hansson, Pernilla; Götmark, Frank (August 2022). "Overpopulation is a major cause of biodiversity loss and smaller human populations are necessary to preserve what is left" (PDF). Biological Conservation. 272 109646. Bibcode:2022BCons.27209646C. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2022.109646.
Conservation biologists standardly list five main direct drivers of biodiversity loss: habitat loss, overexploitation of species, pollution, invasive species, and climate change. The Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services found that in recent decades habitat loss was the leading cause of terrestrial biodiversity loss, while overexploitation (overfishing) was the most important cause of marine losses (IPBES, 2019). All five direct drivers are important, on land and at sea, and all are made worse by larger and denser human populations.
- ^ Crist, Eileen; Mora, Camilo; Engelman, Robert (21 April 2017). "The interaction of human population, food production, and biodiversity protection". Science. 356 (6335): 260–264. Bibcode:2017Sci...356..260C. doi:10.1126/science.aal2011. PMID 28428391.
- ^ Ceballos, Gerardo; Ehrlich, Paul R. (2023). "Mutilation of the tree of life via mass extinction of animal genera". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 120 (39) e2306987120. Bibcode:2023PNAS..12006987C. doi:10.1073/pnas.2306987120. PMC 10523489. PMID 37722053.
- ^ Hughes, Alice C.; Tougeron, Kévin; Martin, Dominic A.; Menga, Filippo; Rosado, Bruno H. P.; Villasante, Sebastian; Madgulkar, Shweta; Gonçalves, Fernando; Geneletti, Davide; Diele-Viegas, Luisa Maria; Berger, Sebastian; Colla, Sheila R.; de Andrade Kamimura, Vitor; Caggiano, Holly; Melo, Felipe (1 January 2023). "Smaller human populations are neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for biodiversity conservation". Biological Conservation. 277 109841. Bibcode:2023BCons.27709841H. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2022.109841.
Through examining the drivers of biodiversity loss in highly biodiverse countries, we show that it is not population driving the loss of habitats, but rather the growth of commodities for export, particularly soybean and oil-palm, primarily for livestock feed or biofuel consumption in higher income economies.
- ^ Weston, Phoebe (26 March 2025). "Biodiversity loss in all species and every ecosystem linked to humans – report". The Guardian. Retrieved 29 March 2025.
- ^ Clay, Keith; Holah, Jenny (10 September 1999). "Fungal Endophyte Symbiosis and Plant Diversity in Successional Fields". Science. 285 (5434): 1742–1744. doi:10.1126/science.285.5434.1742. PMID 10481011.
- ^ a b Morand, Serge; Krasnov, Boris R. (1 September 2010). The Biogeography of Host-Parasite Interactions. Oxford University Press. pp. 93–94. ISBN 978-0-19-956135-3. Retrieved 28 June 2011.
- ^ a b c Cardinale, Bradley J.; Matulich, Kristin L.; Hooper, David U.; Byrnes, Jarrett E.; Duffy, Emmett; Gamfeldt, Lars; Balvanera, Patricia; O'Connor, Mary I.; Gonzalez, Andrew (March 2011). "The functional role of producer diversity in ecosystems". American Journal of Botany. 98 (3): 572–592. Bibcode:2011AmJB...98..572C. doi:10.3732/ajb.1000364. hdl:2027.42/141994. PMID 21613148.
- ^ "A Durable Yet Vulnerable Eden in Amazonia". Dot Earth blog, New York Times. 20 January 2010. Retrieved 2 February 2013.
- ^ Margot S. Bass; Matt Finer; Clinton N. Jenkins; Holger Kreft; Diego F. Cisneros-Heredia; Shawn F. McCracken; Nigel C. A. Pitman; Peter H. English; Kelly Swing; Gorky Villa; Anthony Di Fiore; Christian C. Voigt; Thomas H. Kunz (2010). "Global Conservation Significance of Ecuador's Yasuní National Park". PLOS ONE. 5 (1) e8767. Bibcode:2010PLoSO...5.8767B. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0008767. PMC 2808245. PMID 20098736.
- ^ Benton M. J. (2001). "Biodiversity on land and in the sea". Geological Journal. 36 (3–4): 211–230. Bibcode:2001GeolJ..36..211B. doi:10.1002/gj.877.
- ^ a b c d e f g h i The State of the World's Forests 2020. In brief – Forests, biodiversity and people. Rome, Italy: FAO & UNEP. 2020. doi:10.4060/ca8985en. ISBN 978-92-5-132707-4. S2CID 241416114.[page needed] Text was added from this source which has a Wikipedia-specific licence statement
- ^ a b c Mora, Camilo; Tittensor, Derek P.; Adl, Sina; Simpson, Alastair G. B.; Worm, Boris (23 August 2011). "How Many Species Are There on Earth and in the Ocean?". PLOS Biology. 9 (8) e1001127. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1001127. PMC 3160336. PMID 21886479.
- ^ a b Microorganisms Editorial Office (9 January 2019). "Acknowledgement to Reviewers of Microorganisms in 2018". Microorganisms. 7 (1): 13. doi:10.3390/microorganisms7010013. PMC 6352028.
- ^ "Global Forest Resource Assessment 2020". Food and Agriculture Organization. Retrieved 30 January 2023.
- ^ "The State of the World's Forests 2020: Forests, biodiversity and people [EN/AR/RU] – World | ReliefWeb". reliefweb.int. September 2020. Retrieved 30 January 2023.
- ^ "39% of the EU is covered with forests". ec.europa.eu. Retrieved 30 January 2023.
- ^ Cavallito, Matteo (8 April 2021). "European forests are expanding. But their future is unwritten". Re Soil Foundation. Retrieved 30 January 2023.
- ^ Mora, Camilo; Robertson, D. Ross (July 2005). "Causes of Latitudinal Gradients in Species Richness: A Test with Fishes of the Tropical Eastern Pacific". Ecology. 86 (7): 1771–1782. Bibcode:2005Ecol...86.1771M. doi:10.1890/04-0883.
- ^ Karakassis, Ioannis; Moustakas, Aristides (September 2005). "How diverse is aquatic biodiversity research?". Aquatic Ecology. 39 (3): 367–375. Bibcode:2005AqEco..39..367M. doi:10.1007/s10452-005-6041-y.
- ^ Bahram, Mohammad; Hildebrand, Falk; Forslund, Sofia K.; Anderson, Jennifer L.; Soudzilovskaia, Nadejda A.; Bodegom, Peter M.; Bengtsson-Palme, Johan; Anslan, Sten; Coelho, Luis Pedro; Harend, Helery; Huerta-Cepas, Jaime; Medema, Marnix H.; Maltz, Mia R.; Mundra, Sunil; Olsson, Pål Axel (August 2018). "Structure and function of the global topsoil microbiome". Nature. 560 (7717): 233–237. Bibcode:2018Natur.560..233B. doi:10.1038/s41586-018-0386-6. hdl:1887/73861. PMID 30069051.
- ^ Bickel, Samuel; Or, Dani (8 January 2020). "Soil bacterial diversity mediated by microscale aqueous-phase processes across biomes". Nature Communications. 11 (1): 116. Bibcode:2020NatCo..11..116B. doi:10.1038/s41467-019-13966-w. PMC 6949233. PMID 31913270.
- ^ Cazzolla Gatti, R (2016). "The fractal nature of the latitudinal biodiversity gradient". Biologia. 71 (6): 669–672. Bibcode:2016Biolg..71..669C. doi:10.1515/biolog-2016-0077.
- ^ Cogitore, Clément (1983–....). (January 1988), Hypothesis, National Academy Press, ISBN 978-0-309-03739-6, OCLC 968249007
{{citation}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link) - ^ Biodiversity A–Z. "Biodiversity Hotspots".
- ^ Myers N (1988). "Threatened biotas: 'hot spots' in tropical forests". Environmentalist. 8 (3): 187–208. Bibcode:1988ThEnv...8..187M. doi:10.1007/BF02240252. PMID 12322582.
- ^ Myers, Norman (December 1990). "The biodiversity challenge: Expanded hot-spots analysis". The Environmentalist. 10 (4): 243–256. Bibcode:1990ThEnv..10..243M. doi:10.1007/BF02239720. PMID 12322583.
- ^ Tittensor, Derek P.; Mora, Camilo; Jetz, Walter; Lotze, Heike K.; Ricard, Daniel; Berghe, Edward Vanden; Worm, Boris (August 2010). "Global patterns and predictors of marine biodiversity across taxa". Nature. 466 (7310): 1098–1101. Bibcode:2010Natur.466.1098T. doi:10.1038/nature09329. PMID 20668450.
- ^ McKee, Jeffrey K. (December 2004). Sparing Nature: The Conflict Between Human Population Growth and Earth's Biodiversity. Rutgers University Press. p. 108. ISBN 978-0-8135-3558-6. Retrieved 28 June 2011.
- ^ "Explore the Biodiversity Hotspots | CEPF". www.cepf.net. Retrieved 10 March 2024.
- ^ Galindo-Leal, Carlos (2003). The Atlantic Forest of South America: Biodiversity Status, Threats, and Outlook. Washington: Island Press. p. 35. ISBN 978-1-55963-988-0.
- ^ Myers, Norman; Mittermeier, Russell A.; Mittermeier, Cristina G.; da Fonseca, Gustavo A. B.; Kent, Jennifer (February 2000). "Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities". Nature. 403 (6772): 853–858. Bibcode:2000Natur.403..853M. doi:10.1038/35002501. PMID 10706275.
- ^ "Colombia in the World". Alexander von Humboldt Institute for Research on Biological Resources. Archived from the original on 29 October 2013. Retrieved 30 December 2013.
- ^ godfrey, laurie. "isolation and biodiversity". pbs.org. Retrieved 22 October 2017.
- ^ a b Harrison, Susan P. (15 May 2013), "Plant Endemism in California", Plant and Animal Endemism in California, University of California Press, pp. 43–76, doi:10.1525/california/9780520275546.003.0004, ISBN 978-0-520-27554-6
- ^ "Madagascar – A World Apart: Eden Evolution". www.pbs.org. Retrieved 6 June 2019.
- ^ Normile, Dennis (10 September 2010). "Saving Forests to Save Biodiversity". Science. 329 (5997): 1278–1280. Bibcode:2010Sci...329.1278N. doi:10.1126/science.329.5997.1278. PMID 20829464.
- ^ White, Gilbert (1887). "letter xx". The Natural History of Selborne: With A Naturalist's Calendar & Additional Observations. Scott.
- ^ Algeo, T. J.; Scheckler, S. E. (29 January 1998). "Terrestrial-marine teleconnections in the Devonian: links between the evolution of land plants, weathering processes, and marine anoxic events". Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 353 (1365): 113–130. doi:10.1098/rstb.1998.0195. PMC 1692181.
- ^ Rosing, M.; Bird, D.; Sleep, N.; Bjerrum, C. (2010). "No climate paradox under the faint early Sun". Nature. 464 (7289): 744–747. Bibcode:2010Natur.464..744R. doi:10.1038/nature08955. PMID 20360739.
- ^ a b Alroy, J.; Marshall, C. R.; Bambach, R. K.; Bezusko, K.; Foote, M.; Fürsich, F. T.; Hansen, T. A.; Holland, S. M.; Ivany, L. C.; Jablonski, D.; Jacobs, D. K.; Jones, D. C.; Kosnik, M. A.; Lidgard, S.; Low, S.; Miller, A. I.; Novack-Gottshall, P. M.; Olszewski, T. D.; Patzkowsky, M. E.; Raup, D. M.; Roy, K.; Sepkoski, J. J.; Sommers, M. G.; Wagner, P. J.; Webber, A. (22 May 2001). "Effects of sampling standardization on estimates of Phanerozoic marine diversification". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 98 (11): 6261–6266. doi:10.1073/pnas.111144698. PMC 33456. PMID 11353852.
- ^ Servais, Thomas; Cascales-Miñana, Borja; Harper, David A.T.; Lefebvre, Bertrand; Munnecke, Axel; Wang, Wenhui; Zhang, Yuandong (August 2023). "No (Cambrian) explosion and no (Ordovician) event: A single long-term radiation in the early Palaeozoic". Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology. 623 111592. Bibcode:2023PPP...62311592S. doi:10.1016/j.palaeo.2023.111592.
- ^ Sahney, Sarda; Benton, Michael J.; Falcon-Lang, Howard J. (December 2010). "Rainforest collapse triggered Carboniferous tetrapod diversification in Euramerica". Geology. 38 (12): 1079–1082. Bibcode:2010Geo....38.1079S. doi:10.1130/G31182.1.
- ^ Didier, Gilles; Laurin, Michel (23 April 2024). "Testing extinction events and temporal shifts in diversification and fossilization rates through the skyline Fossilized Birth-Death (FBD) model: The example of some mid-Permian synapsid extinctions". Cladistics. 40 (3): 282–306. doi:10.1111/cla.12577. PMID 38651531.
- ^ Viglietti, Pia A.; Benson, Roger B. J.; Smith, Roger M. H.; Botha, Jennifer; Kammerer, Christian F.; Skosan, Zaituna; Butler, Elize; Crean, Annelise; Eloff, Bobby; Kaal, Sheena; Mohoi, Joël; Molehe, William; Mtalana, Nolusindiso; Mtungata, Sibusiso; Ntheri, Nthaopa; Ntsala, Thabang; Nyaphuli, John; October, Paul; Skinner, Georgina; Strong, Mike; Stummer, Hedi; Wolvaardt, Frederik P.; Angielczyk, Kenneth D. (27 April 2021). "Evidence from South Africa for a protracted end-Permian extinction on land". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 118 (17) e2017045118. Bibcode:2021PNAS..11817045V. doi:10.1073/pnas.2017045118. PMC 8092562. PMID 33875588.
- ^ Kammerer, Christian F.; Viglietti, Pia A.; Butler, Elize; Botha, Jennifer (June 2023). "Rapid turnover of top predators in African terrestrial faunas around the Permian-Triassic mass extinction". Current Biology. 33 (11): 2283–2290.e3. Bibcode:2023CBio...33E2283K. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2023.04.007. PMID 37220743.
- ^ Sahney, S. & Benton, M.J. (2008). "Recovery from the most profound mass extinction of all time". Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 275 (1636): 759–765. doi:10.1098/rspb.2007.1370. PMC 2596898. PMID 18198148.
- ^ Machalski, Marcin (1 October 2005). "The youngest Maastrichtian ammonite faunas from Poland and their dating by scaphitids". Cretaceous Research. 26 (5): 813–836. Bibcode:2005CrRes..26..813M. doi:10.1016/j.cretres.2005.05.007.
- ^ Schopf, J. William; Kudryavtsev, Anatoliy B.; Czaja, Andrew D.; Tripathi, Abhishek B. (5 October 2007). "Evidence of Archean life: Stromatolites and microfossils". Precambrian Research. Earliest Evidence of Life on Earth. 158 (3–4): 141–155. Bibcode:2007PreR..158..141S. doi:10.1016/j.precamres.2007.04.009.
- ^ Marjanović, David; Laurin, Michel (September 2008). "Assessing Confidence Intervals for Stratigraphic Ranges of Higher Taxa: The Case of Lissamphibia". Acta Palaeontologica Polonica. 53 (3): 413–432. doi:10.4202/app.2008.0305.
- ^ a b "Mapping the web of life". Unep.org. Archived from the original on 14 February 2007. Retrieved 21 June 2009.
- ^ Okasha, S. (2010). "Does diversity always grow?". Nature. 466 (7304): 318. Bibcode:2010Natur.466..318O. doi:10.1038/466318a.
- ^ "Stanford researchers discover that animal functional diversity started poor, became richer over time". biox.stanford.edu. 11 March 2015.
- ^ a b Hautmann, Michael; Bagherpour, Borhan; Brosse, Morgane; Frisk, Åsa; Hofmann, Richard; Baud, Aymon; Nützel, Alexander; Goudemand, Nicolas; Bucher, Hugo; Brayard, Arnaud (2015). "Competition in slow motion: the unusual case of benthic marine communities in the wake of the end-Permian mass extinction". Palaeontology. 58 (5): 871–901. Bibcode:2015Palgy..58..871H. doi:10.1111/pala.12186.
- ^ a b c Markov, AV; Korotaev, AV (2008). "Hyperbolic growth of marine and continental biodiversity through the phanerozoic and community evolution". Journal of General Biology. 69 (3): 175–194. PMID 18677962.
- ^ a b Markov, A; Korotayev, A (2007). "Phanerozoic marine biodiversity follows a hyperbolic trend". Palaeoworld. 16 (4): 311–318. doi:10.1016/j.palwor.2007.01.002.
- ^ National Survey Reveals Biodiversity Crisis Archived 7 June 2007 at the Wayback Machine American Museum of Natural History
- ^ a b Wilson, Edward O. (1 January 2002). The Future of Life. Alfred A. Knopf. ISBN 978-0-679-45078-8.
- ^ Barry, John C. (1992). "Extinction: Bad genes or bad luck? By David M. Raup. New York: W. W. Norton. 1991. xvii + 210 pp. ISBN 0-393-03008-3. $19.95 (cloth)". American Journal of Physical Anthropology. 88 (4): 563–564. doi:10.1002/ajpa.1330880410.
- ^ May, Robert M. (16 September 1988). "How Many Species Are There on Earth?". Science. 241 (4872): 1441–1449. Bibcode:1988Sci...241.1441M. doi:10.1126/science.241.4872.1441. PMID 17790039.
- ^ McKinney, Michael L. (1997). "How do rare species avoid extinction? A paleontological view". The Biology of Rarity. pp. 110–129. doi:10.1007/978-94-011-5874-9_7. ISBN 978-94-010-6483-5.
- ^ G. Miller; Scott Spoolman (2012). Environmental Science - Biodiversity Is a Crucial Part of the Earth's Natural Capital. Cengage Learning. p. 62. ISBN 978-1-133-70787-5. Retrieved 27 December 2014.
- ^ Staff (2 May 2016). "Researchers find that Earth may be home to 1 trillion species". National Science Foundation. Retrieved 6 May 2016.
- ^ Staff (2014). "The Biosphere". Aspen Global Change Institute. Archived from the original on 10 November 2014. Retrieved 10 November 2014.
- ^ Wade, Nicholas (25 July 2016). "Meet Luca, the Ancestor of All Living Things". New York Times. Retrieved 25 July 2016.
- ^ "Age of the Earth". United States Geological Survey. 9 July 2007. Retrieved 10 January 2006.
- ^ Dalrymple, G. Brent (2001). "The age of the Earth in the twentieth century: a problem (mostly) solved". Special Publications, Geological Society of London. 190 (1): 205–221. Bibcode:2001GSLSP.190..205D. doi:10.1144/GSL.SP.2001.190.01.14.
- ^ Manhes, Gérard; Allègre, Claude J.; Dupré, Bernard; Hamelin, Bruno (May 1980). "Lead isotope study of basic-ultrabasic layered complexes: Speculations about the age of the earth and primitive mantle characteristics". Earth and Planetary Science Letters. 47 (3): 370–382. Bibcode:1980E&PSL..47..370M. doi:10.1016/0012-821X(80)90024-2.
- ^ Schopf, J. William; Kudryavtsev, Anatoliy B.; Czaja, Andrew D.; Tripathi, Abhishek B. (5 October 2007). "Evidence of Archean life: Stromatolites and microfossils". Precambrian Research. 158 (3–4). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Elsevier: 141–155. Bibcode:2007PreR..158..141S. doi:10.1016/j.precamres.2007.04.009.
- ^ Schopf, J. William (29 June 2006). "Fossil evidence of Archaean life". Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B. 361 (1470). London: Royal Society: 869–885. doi:10.1098/rstb.2006.1834. PMC 1578735. PMID 16754604.
- ^ Raven, Peter H.; Johnson, George B. (2002). Biology (6th ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill. p. 68. ISBN 0-07-112261-3. LCCN 2001030052. OCLC 45806501.
- ^ Ohtomo, Yoko; Kakegawa, Takeshi; Ishida, Akizumi; Nagase, Toshiro; Rosing, Minik T. (January 2014). "Evidence for biogenic graphite in early Archaean Isua metasedimentary rocks". Nature Geoscience. 7 (1): 25–28. Bibcode:2014NatGe...7...25O. doi:10.1038/ngeo2025.
- ^ Hassenkam, T.; Rosing, M. T. (2 November 2017). "3.7 billion year old biogenic remains". Communicative & Integrative Biology. 10 (5–6) e1380759. doi:10.1080/19420889.2017.1380759. PMC 5731516. PMID 29260796.
- ^ Borenstein, Seth (19 October 2015). "Hints of life on what was thought to be desolate early Earth". AP News.
- ^ a b c d e Cardinale, Bradley J.; Duffy, J. Emmett; Gonzalez, Andrew; Hooper, David U.; Perrings, Charles; Venail, Patrick; Narwani, Anita; Mace, Georgina M.; Tilman, David; Wardle, David A.; Kinzig, Ann P.; Daily, Gretchen C.; Loreau, Michel; Grace, James B.; Larigauderie, Anne; Srivastava, Diane S.; Naeem, Shahid (7 June 2012). "Biodiversity loss and its impact on humanity" (PDF). Nature. 486 (7401): 59–67. Bibcode:2012Natur.486...59C. doi:10.1038/nature11148. PMID 22678280.
- ^ Daniel, Terry C.; Muhar, Andreas; Arnberger, Arne; Aznar, Olivier; Boyd, James W.; Chan, Kai M. A.; Costanza, Robert; Elmqvist, Thomas; Flint, Courtney G.; Gobster, Paul H.; Grêt-Regamey, Adrienne; Lave, Rebecca; Muhar, Susanne; Penker, Marianne; Ribe, Robert G.; Schauppenlehner, Thomas; Sikor, Thomas; Soloviy, Ihor; Spierenburg, Marja; Taczanowska, Karolina; Tam, Jordan; von der Dunk, Andreas (5 June 2012). "Contributions of cultural services to the ecosystem services agenda". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 109 (23): 8812–8819. Bibcode:2012PNAS..109.8812D. doi:10.1073/pnas.1114773109. PMC 3384142. PMID 22615401.
- ^ Broad, William (19 November 1996). "Paradise Lost: Biosphere Retooled as Atmospheric Nightmare". The New York Times. Retrieved 10 April 2013.
- ^ Ponti, Crystal (3 March 2017). "Rise of the Robot Bees: Tiny Drones Turned into Artificial Pollinators". NPR. Retrieved 18 January 2018.
- ^ LOSEY, JOHN E.; VAUGHAN, MACE (1 January 2006). "The Economic Value of Ecological Services Provided by Insects". BioScience. 56 (4): 311. doi:10.1641/0006-3568(2006)56[311:TEVOES]2.0.CO;2.
- ^ Costanza, Robert; d'Arge, Ralph; de Groot, Rudolf; Farber, Stephen; Grasso, Monica; Hannon, Bruce; Limburg, Karin; Naeem, Shahid; O'Neill, Robert V.; Paruelo, Jose; Raskin, Robert G.; Sutton, Paul; van den Belt, Marjan (May 1997). "The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital". Nature. 387 (6630): 253–260. Bibcode:1997Natur.387..253C. doi:10.1038/387253a0.
- ^ Kiaer, Lars P.; Skovgaard, M.; Østergård, Hanne (1 December 2009). "Grain yield increase in cereal variety mixtures: A meta-analysis of field trials". Field Crops Research. 114 (3): 361–373. Bibcode:2009FCrRe.114..361K. doi:10.1016/j.fcr.2009.09.006.
- ^ Letourneau, Deborah K. (1 January 2011). "Does plant diversity benefit agroecosystems? A synthetic review". Ecological Applications. 21 (1): 9–21. Bibcode:2011EcoAp..21....9L. doi:10.1890/09-2026.1. PMID 21516884.
- ^ Piotto, Daniel (1 March 2008). "A meta-analysis comparing tree growth in monocultures and mixed plantations". Forest Ecology and Management. 255 (3–4): 781–786. Bibcode:2008ForEM.255..781P. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2007.09.065.
- ^ Quijas, Sandra; Schmid, Bernhard; Balvanera, Patricia (November 2010). "Plant diversity enhances provision of ecosystem services: A new synthesis" (PDF). Basic and Applied Ecology. 11 (7): 582–593. Bibcode:2010BApEc..11..582Q. doi:10.1016/j.baae.2010.06.009.
- ^ Futuyma, Douglas J.; Shaffer, H. Bradley; Simberloff, Daniel, eds. (1 January 2009). Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution and Systematics: Vol 40 2009. Palo Alto, Calif.: Annual Reviews. pp. 573–592. ISBN 978-0-8243-1440-8.
- ^ Philpott, Stacy M.; Soong, Oliver; Lowenstein, Jacob H.; Pulido, Astrid Luz; Lopez, Diego Tobar (1 October 2009). "Functional richness and ecosystem services: bird predation on arthropods in tropical agroecosystems". Ecological Applications. 19 (7). Flynn, Dan F. B.; DeClerck, Fabrice: 1858–1867. Bibcode:2009EcoAp..19.1858P. doi:10.1890/08-1928.1. PMID 19831075.
- ^ Bael, Sunshine A. Van; Philpott, Stacy M.; Greenberg, Russell; Bichier, Peter; Barber, Nicholas A.; Mooney, Kailen A.; Gruner, Daniel S. (April 2008). "Birds as Predators in Tropical Agroforestry Systems". Ecology. 89 (4): 928–934. Bibcode:2008Ecol...89..928V. doi:10.1890/06-1976.1. hdl:1903/7873. PMID 18481517.
- ^ Vance-Chalcraft, Heather D.; Rosenheim, Jay A.; Vonesh, James R.; Osenberg, Craig W.; Sih, Andrew (November 2007). "The Influence of Intraguild Predation on Prey Suppression and Prey Release: A Meta-Analysis". Ecology. 88 (11): 2689–2696. Bibcode:2007Ecol...88.2689V. doi:10.1890/06-1869.1. PMID 18051635.
- ^ Vandermeer, John H. (2011). The Ecology of Agroecosystems. Jones & Bartlett Learning. ISBN 978-0-7637-7153-9.
- ^ IPBES (26 June 2018). "Assessment Report on Pollinators, Pollination and Food Production". ipbes.org. IPBES. Retrieved 13 April 2021.
- ^ Bommarco (2013). "Ecological intensification: harnessing ecosystem services for food security". Trends in Ecology and Evolution. 28 (4): 230–238. Bibcode:2013TEcoE..28..230B. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2012.10.012. PMID 23153724.
- ^ Aswathanarayana, Uppugunduri (2012). Natural Resources – Technology, Economics & Policy. Leiden, Netherlands: CRC Press. p. 370. ISBN 978-0-203-12399-7.
- ^ Aswathanarayana, Uppugunduri (2012). Natural Resources – Technology, Economics & Policy. Leiden. Netherlands: CRC Press. p. 370. ISBN 978-0-203-12399-7.
- ^ World Health Organization(WHO) and Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (2015) Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health, a State of Knowledge Review . See also Website of the Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity on biodiversity and health. Other relevant resources include Reports of the 1st and 2nd International Conferences on Health and Biodiversity. Archived 7 January 2009 at the Wayback Machine See also: Website of the UN COHAB Initiative Archived 4 February 2009 at the Wayback Machine
- ^ a b Chivian, Eric, ed. (15 May 2008). Sustaining Life: How Human Health Depends on Biodiversity. OUP US. ISBN 978-0-19-517509-7.
- ^ Corvalán, Carlos; Hales, Simon; Anthony J. McMichael (2005). Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Health Synthesis. World Health Organization. p. 28. ISBN 978-92-4-156309-3.
- ^ (2009) "Climate Change and Biological Diversity" Convention on Biological Diversity Retrieved 5 November 2009
- ^ Ramanujan, Krishna (2 December 2010). "Study: Loss of species is bad for your health". Cornell Chronicle. Retrieved 20 July 2011.
- ^ Gaston, Kevin J.; Warren, Philip H.; Devine-Wright, Patrick; Irvine, Katherine N.; Fuller, Richard A. (2007). "Psychological benefits of greenspace increase with biodiversity". Biology Letters. 3 (4): 390–394. doi:10.1098/rsbl.2007.0149. PMC 2390667. PMID 17504734.
- ^ "Protecting nature to minimize disaster risks | UNDRR". www.undrr.org. 1 November 2023. Retrieved 6 May 2025.
- ^ Mendelsohn, Robert; Balick, Michael J. (April 1995). "The value of undiscovered pharmaceuticals in tropical forests". Economic Botany. 49 (2): 223–228. Bibcode:1995EcBot..49..223M. doi:10.1007/BF02862929.
- ^ (2006) "Molecular Pharming" GMO Compass Retrieved 5 November 2009, GMOcompass.org Archived 8 February 2008 at the Wayback Machine
- ^ Jain, Roopesh; Sonawane, Shailendra; Mandrekar, Noopur (2008). "Marine organisms: Potential source for drug discovery". Current Science. 94 (3): 292. JSTOR 24100323.
- ^ Dhillion, Shivcharn S.; Svarstad, Hanne; Amundsen, Cathrine; Bugge, Hans Chr. (2002). "Bioprospecting: Effects on Environment and Development". Ambio: A Journal of the Human Environment. 31 (6): 491–493. doi:10.1639/0044-7447(2002)031[0491:beoead]2.0.co;2. PMID 12436849.
- ^ Cole, A. (16 July 2005). "Looking for new compounds in sea is endangering ecosystem". BMJ. 330 (7504): 1350. doi:10.1136/bmj.330.7504.1350-d. PMC 558324. PMID 15947392.
- ^ "COHAB Initiative – on Natural Products and Medicinal Resources". Cohabnet.org. Archived from the original on 25 October 2017. Retrieved 21 June 2009.
- ^ a b "The Biodiversity Crisis Is a Business Crisis". BCG Global. 23 February 2021. Retrieved 3 March 2025.
- ^ Singh, Geetika (11 September 2023). "Why Are Biodiversity and Business Related?". Earth.Org. Retrieved 3 March 2025.
- ^ Tribot, Anne-Sophie; Mouquet, Nicolas; Villéger, Sébastien; Raymond, Michel; Hoff, Fabrice; Boissery, Pierre; Holon, Florian; Deter, Julie (28 September 2016). "Taxonomic and functional diversity increase the aesthetic value of coralligenous reefs". Scientific Reports. 6 (1) 34229. Bibcode:2016NatSR...634229T. doi:10.1038/srep34229. PMC 5039688. PMID 27677850.
- ^ Moore, John C. (2013). "Diversity, Taxonomic versus Functional". Encyclopedia of Biodiversity. pp. 648–656. doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-384719-5.00036-8. ISBN 978-0-12-384720-1.
- ^ Chakraborty, Jaya; Palit, Krishna; Das, Surajit (2022). "Metagenomic approaches to study the culture-independent bacterial diversity of a polluted environment—a case study on north-eastern coast of Bay of Bengal, India". Microbial Biodegradation and Bioremediation. pp. 81–107. doi:10.1016/B978-0-323-85455-9.00014-X. ISBN 978-0-323-85455-9.
- ^ Hamilton, Andrew J. (April 2005). "Species diversity or biodiversity?". Journal of Environmental Management. 75 (1): 89–92. Bibcode:2005JEnvM..75...89H. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2004.11.012. PMID 15748806.
- ^ Ortiz-Burgos, Selene (2016). "Shannon-Weaver Diversity Index". Encyclopedia of Estuaries. Encyclopedia of Earth Sciences Series. pp. 572–573. doi:10.1007/978-94-017-8801-4_233. ISBN 978-94-017-8800-7.
- ^ Allaby, Michael (2010), "Simpson's diversity index", A Dictionary of Ecology, Oxford University Press, doi:10.1093/acref/9780199567669.001.0001, ISBN 978-0-19-956766-9, retrieved 25 February 2023
- ^ Morris, E. Kathryn; Caruso, Tancredi; Buscot, François; Fischer, Markus; Hancock, Christine; Maier, Tanja S.; Meiners, Torsten; Müller, Caroline; Obermaier, Elisabeth; Prati, Daniel; Socher, Stephanie A.; Sonnemann, Ilja; Wäschke, Nicole; Wubet, Tesfaye; Wurst, Susanne (September 2014). "Choosing and using diversity indices: insights for ecological applications from the German Biodiversity Exploratories". Ecology and Evolution. 4 (18): 3514–3524. Bibcode:2014EcoEv...4.3514M. doi:10.1002/ece3.1155. PMC 4224527. PMID 25478144.
- ^ Wilson Edward O (2000). "On the Future of Conservation Biology". Conservation Biology. 14 (1): 1–3. Bibcode:2000ConBi..14....1W. doi:10.1046/j.1523-1739.2000.00000-e1.x.
- ^ Nee S (2004). "More than meets the eye". Nature. 429 (6994): 804–805. Bibcode:2004Natur.429..804N. doi:10.1038/429804a. PMID 15215837.
- ^ Stork, Nigel E. (2007). "Biodiversity: World of insects". Nature. 448 (7154): 657–658. Bibcode:2007Natur.448..657S. doi:10.1038/448657a. PMID 17687315.
- ^ Thomas, J. A.; Telfer, M. G.; Roy, D. B.; Preston, C. D.; Greenwood, J. J. D.; Asher, J.; Fox, R.; Clarke, R. T.; Lawton, J. H. (19 March 2004). "Comparative Losses of British Butterflies, Birds, and Plants and the Global Extinction Crisis". Science. 303 (5665): 1879–1881. Bibcode:2004Sci...303.1879T. doi:10.1126/science.1095046. PMID 15031508.
- ^ "Biodiversity loss | Causes, Effects, & Facts | Britannica". www.britannica.com. Retrieved 23 April 2024.
- ^ Levine, J. M. (5 May 2000). "Species Diversity and Biological Invasions: Relating Local Process to Community Pattern". Science. 288 (5467): 852–854. Bibcode:2000Sci...288..852L. doi:10.1126/science.288.5467.852. PMID 10797006.
- ^ GUREVITCH, J; PADILLA, D (1 September 2004). "Are invasive species a major cause of extinctions?". Trends in Ecology & Evolution. 19 (9): 470–474. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2004.07.005. PMID 16701309.
- ^ Sax, Dov F.; Gaines, Steven D.; Brown, James H. (1 December 2002). "Species Invasions Exceed Extinctions on Islands Worldwide: A Comparative Study of Plants and Birds". The American Naturalist. 160 (6): 766–783. Bibcode:2002ANat..160..766S. doi:10.1086/343877. PMID 18707464.
- ^ Jude, David (1995). Munawar, M. (ed.). The lake Huron ecosystem: ecology, fisheries and management. Amsterdam: S.P.B. Academic Publishing. ISBN 978-90-5103-117-1.
- ^ "Are invasive plants a threat to native biodiversity? It depends on the spatial scale". ScienceDaily (Press release). American Journal of Botany. 11 April 2011.
- ^ Higgins, Steven I.; Richardson, David M. (1998). "Pine invasions in the southern hemisphere: Modelling interactions between organism, environment and disturbance". Plant Ecology. 135 (1): 79–93. Bibcode:1998PlEco.135...79H. doi:10.1023/a:1009760512895.
- ^ Mooney, H. A.; Cleland, EE (2001). "The evolutionary impact of invasive species". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 98 (10): 5446–5451. Bibcode:2001PNAS...98.5446M. doi:10.1073/pnas.091093398. PMC 33232. PMID 11344292.
- ^ Aubry, Carol; Shoal, Robin; Erickson, Vicky (January 2005). Grass cultivars: Their origins, development, and use on national forests and grasslands in the Pacific Northwest (PDF) (Report). USDA Forest Service. Archived from the original (PDF) on 18 February 2017.
- ^ Rhymer, Judith M.; Simberloff, Daniel (1996). "Extinction by Hybridization and Introgression". Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics. 27 (1): 83–109. Bibcode:1996AnRES..27...83R. doi:10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.27.1.83. JSTOR 2097230.
- ^ Potts, Bradley Michael; Barbour, Robert C.; Hingston, Andrew B. (2001). Genetic Pollution from Farm Forestry Using Eucalypt Species and Hydrids: A Report for the RIRDC/L & WA/FWPRDC Joint Venture Agroforestry Program. RIRDC. ISBN 978-0-642-58336-9.[page needed]
- ^ Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005). World Resources Institute, Washington, DC. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Biodiversity Synthesis
- ^ a b c Soulé, Michael E. (1985). "What Is Conservation Biology?". BioScience. 35 (11): 727–734. doi:10.2307/1310054. JSTOR 1310054.
- ^ Davis, Peter (1996). Museums and the natural environment: the role of natural history museums in biological conservation. Leicester University Press. ISBN 978-0-7185-1548-5.[page needed]
- ^ a b Dyke, Fred Van (29 February 2008). Conservation Biology: Foundations, Concepts, Applications. Springer Science & Business Media. ISBN 978-1-4020-6890-4.
- ^ Hunter, Malcolm L. (1996). Fundamentals of Conservation Biology. Blackwell Science. ISBN 978-0-86542-371-8.
- ^ Bowen, B. W. (1999). "Preserving genes, species, or ecosystems? Healing the fractured foundations of conservation policy". Molecular Ecology. 8 (12 Suppl 1): S5 – S10. Bibcode:1999MolEc...8.....B. doi:10.1046/j.1365-294x.1999.00798.x. PMID 10703547.
- ^ Soulé, Michael E. (1 January 1986). Conservation Biology: The Science of Scarcity and Diversity. Sinauer Associates. ISBN 978-0-87893-794-3.
- ^ Margules, C. R.; Pressey, R. L. (May 2000). "Systematic conservation planning" (PDF). Nature. 405 (6783): 243–253. doi:10.1038/35012251. PMID 10821285.
- ^ a b Knozowski, Paweł; Nowakowski, Jacek J.; Stawicka, Anna Maria; Górski, Andrzej; Dulisz, Beata (10 November 2023). "Effect of nature protection and management of grassland on biodiversity – Case from big flooded river valley (NE Poland)". Science of the Total Environment. 898 165280. Bibcode:2023ScTEn.89865280K. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.165280. PMID 37419354.
- ^ Example: Gascon, C., Collins, J. P., Moore, R. D., Church, D. R., McKay, J. E. and Mendelson, J. R. III (eds) (2007). Amphibian Conservation Action Plan. IUCN/SSC Amphibian Specialist Group. Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. 64pp. Amphibians.org Archived 4 July 2007 at the Wayback Machine, see also Millenniumassessment.org, Europa.eu Archived 12 February 2009 at the Wayback Machine
- ^ Luck, Gary W.; Daily, Gretchen C.; Ehrlich, Paul R. (July 2003). "Population diversity and ecosystem services". Trends in Ecology & Evolution. 18 (7): 331–336. doi:10.1016/S0169-5347(03)00100-9.
- ^ "Millennium Ecosystem Assessment". www.millenniumassessment.org. Archived from the original on 13 August 2015.
- ^ "Beantwoording vragen over fokken en doden van gezonde dieren in dierentuinen" (PDF) (in Dutch). Ministry of Economic Affairs (Netherlands). 25 March 2014. Archived from the original (PDF) on 14 July 2014. Retrieved 9 June 2014.
- ^ "Barcode of Life". Barcoding.si.edu. 26 May 2010. Archived from the original on 22 November 2022. Retrieved 24 September 2011.
- ^ "Earth Times: show/303405,camel-cull-would-help-curb-global-warming.ht…". 1 August 2012. Archived from the original on 1 August 2012.
- ^ "Australia's Native Vegetation Framework" (PDF).
- ^ "Belgium creating 45 "seed gardens"; gene banks with intent to reintroduction". Hbvl.be. 8 September 2011. Retrieved 24 September 2011.
- ^ Kaiser, Jocelyn (21 September 2001). "Bold Corridor Project Confronts Political Reality". Science. 293 (5538): 2196–2199. doi:10.1126/science.293.5538.2196. PMID 11567122.
- ^ Mulongoy, Kalemani Jo; Chape, Stuart (2004). Protected Areas and Biodiversity: An Overview of Key Issues (PDF). Montreal, Canada and Cambridge, UK: CBD Secretariat and UNEP-WCMC. pp. 15 and 25. Archived from the original (PDF) on 22 September 2017. Retrieved 23 October 2017.
- ^ Baillie, Jonathan; Ya-Ping, Zhang (14 September 2018). "Space for nature". Science. 361 (6407): 1051. Bibcode:2018Sci...361.1051B. doi:10.1126/science.aau1397. PMID 30213888.
- ^ Allan, James R.; Possingham, Hugh P.; Atkinson, Scott C.; Waldron, Anthony; Di Marco, Moreno; Butchart, Stuart H. M.; Adams, Vanessa M.; Kissling, W. Daniel; Worsdell, Thomas; Sandbrook, Chris; Gibbon, Gwili; Kumar, Kundan; Mehta, Piyush; Maron, Martine; Williams, Brooke A.; Jones, Kendall R.; Wintle, Brendan A.; Reside, April E.; Watson, James E. M. (3 June 2022). "The minimum land area requiring conservation attention to safeguard biodiversity". Science. 376 (6597): 1094–1101. Bibcode:2022Sci...376.1094A. doi:10.1126/science.abl9127. hdl:11573/1640006. PMID 35653463.
- ^ a b Paddison, Laura (19 December 2022). "More than 190 countries sign landmark agreement to halt the biodiversity crisis". CNN. Retrieved 20 December 2022.
- ^ Lambert, Jonathan (4 September 2020). "Protecting half of Earth may help solve climate change, save species". ScienceNews.
- ^ "Protected areas". International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). 20 August 2015.
- ^ "FAO – Sustainable Forest Management (SFM) Toolbox". Archived from the original on 30 November 2020. Retrieved 8 December 2020.
- ^ "Guidelines for Applying Protected Area Management Categories" (PDF).
- ^ "Wildlife Sanctuaries & Properties". Mass Audubon. Retrieved 13 April 2025.
- ^ "Biodiversity and national parks: What's relevance got to do with it? (U.S. National Park Service)". www.nps.gov. Retrieved 3 March 2025.
- ^ Global Forest Resources Assessment 2020 – Key findings. FAO. 2020. doi:10.4060/ca8753en. ISBN 978-92-5-132581-0. S2CID 130116768.[page needed] Text was added from this source which has a Wikipedia-specific licence statement
- ^ Sahayaraj, K. (10 July 2014). Basic and Applied Aspects of Biopesticides. Springer. ISBN 978-81-322-1877-7.
- ^ Beech, E.; Rivers, M.; Oldfield, S.; Smith, P. P. (4 July 2017). "GlobalTreeSearch: The first complete global database of tree species and country distributions". Journal of Sustainable Forestry. 36 (5): 454–489. Bibcode:2017JSusF..36..454B. doi:10.1080/10549811.2017.1310049.
- ^ "Endemic species and their value to biodiversity".
- ^ European Investment Bank (8 December 2022). Forests at the heart of sustainable development: Investing in forests to meet biodiversity and climate goals. European Investment Bank. ISBN 978-92-861-5403-4.
- ^ "Forests - Environment - European Commission". ec.europa.eu. Retrieved 30 January 2023.
- ^ Summary for policymakers of the global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (PDF). the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. 6 May 2019. Retrieved 10 May 2019.
- ^ Deutsche Welle, Deutsche (6 May 2019). "Why Biodiversity Loss Hurts Humans as Much as Climate Change Does". Ecowatch. Retrieved 10 May 2019.
- ^ Booth, Hollie; Milner-Gulland, E.J.; McCormick, Nadine; Starkey, Malcolm (July 2024). "Operationalizing transformative change for business in the context of Nature Positive". One Earth. 7 (7): 1235–1249. doi:10.1016/j.oneear.2024.06.003.
- ^ Milner-Gulland, E.J.; Addison, Prue; Arlidge, William N.S.; Baker, Julia; Booth, Hollie; Brooks, Thomas; Bull, Joseph W.; Burgass, Michael J.; Ekstrom, Jon; zu Ermgassen, Sophus O.S.E.; Fleming, L. Vincent; Grub, Henry M.J.; von Hase, Amrei; Hoffmann, Michael; Hutton, Jonathan; Juffe-Bignoli, Diego; ten Kate, Kerry; Kiesecker, Joseph; Kümpel, Noëlle F.; Maron, Martine; Newing, Helen S.; Ole-Moiyoi, Katrina; Sinclair, Cheli; Sinclair, Sam; Starkey, Malcolm; Stuart, Simon N.; Tayleur, Cath; Watson, James E.M. (January 2021). "Four steps for the Earth: mainstreaming the post-2020 global biodiversity framework". One Earth. 4 (1): 75–87. Bibcode:2021OEart...4...75M. doi:10.1016/j.oneear.2020.12.011.
- ^ "What is Nature Positive?". Nature Positive Initiative. Retrieved 17 July 2024.
- ^ Peter, Maria; Diekötter, Tim; Höffler, Tim; Kremer, Kerstin (April 2021). "Biodiversity citizen science: Outcomes for the participating citizens". People and Nature. 3 (2): 294–311. Bibcode:2021PeoNa...3..294P. doi:10.1002/pan3.10193.
- ^ Chandler, Mark; See, Linda; Copas, Kyle; Bonde, Astrid M.Z.; López, Bernat Claramunt; Danielsen, Finn; Legind, Jan Kristoffer; Masinde, Siro; Miller-Rushing, Abraham J.; Newman, Greg; Rosemartin, Alyssa; Turak, Eren (September 2017). "Contribution of citizen science towards international biodiversity monitoring". Biological Conservation. 213: 280–294. Bibcode:2017BCons.213..280C. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2016.09.004.
- ^ Walters, Michele; Scholes, Robert J. (2017). The GEO Handbook on Biodiversity Observation Networks. Springer Nature. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-27288-7. hdl:20.500.12657/28080. ISBN 978-3-319-27288-7.[page needed]
- ^ Aristeidou, Maria; Herodotou, Christothea; Ballard, Heidi L.; Higgins, Lila; Johnson, Rebecca F.; Miller, Annie E.; Young, Alison N.; Robinson, Lucy D. (July 2021). "How Do Young Community and Citizen Science Volunteers Support Scientific Research on Biodiversity? The Case of iNaturalist". Diversity. 13 (7): 318. Bibcode:2021Diver..13..318A. doi:10.3390/d13070318. PMC 7613115. PMID 35873351.
- ^ "Home". Convention on Biological Diversity. Retrieved 13 April 2025.
- ^ Shiva, Vandana (January 2007). "Bioprospecting as Sophisticated Biopiracy". Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society. 32 (2): 307–313. doi:10.1086/508502.
- ^ Unit, Biosafety (28 March 2025). "The Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit-sharing". www.cbd.int. Retrieved 13 April 2025.
- ^ Einhorn, Catrin (19 December 2022). "Nearly Every Country Signs On to a Sweeping Deal to Protect Nature". The New York Times. Retrieved 27 December 2022.
The United States is just one of two countries in the world that are not party to the Convention on Biological Diversity, largely because Republicans, who are typically opposed to joining treaties, have blocked United States membership. That means the American delegation was required to participate from the sidelines. (The only other country that has not joined the treaty is the Holy See.)
- ^ "COP15: Key outcomes agreed at the UN biodiversity conference in Montreal". Carbon Brief. 20 December 2022. Retrieved 5 January 2023.
- ^ Greenfield, Patrick; Weston, Phoebe (19 December 2022). "Cop15: historic deal struck to halt biodiversity loss by 2030". The Guardian. Retrieved 9 January 2023.
- ^ "From Farm to Fork". European Commission website. European Union. Retrieved 26 May 2020.
- ^ "EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030". European Commission website. European Union. Retrieved 25 May 2020.
- ^ Environmental Law and Policy: Nature, Law, and Society. Aspen Publishing. 2016. ISBN 9781454876297.
{{cite book}}: Check|isbn=value: checksum (help) - ^ Ohwofasa Akpeninor, James (2012). Modern Concepts of Security. AuthorHouse. p. 234. ISBN 978-1-4678-8162-3.
- ^ "Gene Patenting". Ornl.gov. Retrieved 21 June 2009.
- ^ Bosselman, Fred (15 December 2004). "A Dozen Biodiversity Puzzles". NYU Environmental Law Journal. 12 (366). SSRN 1523937.
- ^ Harris, J. Arthur (1916). "The Variable Desert". The Scientific Monthly. 3 (1): 41–50. Bibcode:1916SciMo...3...41H. JSTOR 6182.
- ^ Dasmann, Raymond F. (1967). "A Different Kind of Country". Kirkus Reviews. Retrieved 7 August 2022.
- ^ Brown, William Y. Brown (9 August 2011). "Conserving Biological Diversity". Brookings Institution. Retrieved 7 August 2022.
- ^ Terbogh, John (1974). "The Preservation of Natural Diversity: The Problem of Extinction Prone Species". BioScience. 24 (12): 715–722. doi:10.2307/1297090. JSTOR 1297090.
- ^ Soulé, Michael E.; Wilcox, Bruce A. (1980). Conservation biology: an evolutionary-ecological perspective. Sunder*land, Mass: Sinauer Associates. ISBN 978-0-87893-800-1.
- ^ "Robert E. Jenkins". Nature.org. 18 August 2011. Archived from the original on 19 September 2012. Retrieved 24 September 2011.
- ^ Wilson, E. O. (1988). Biodiversity. National Academy Press. p. vi. doi:10.17226/989. ISBN 978-0-309-03739-6. PMID 25032475.
- ^ Tangley, Laura (1985). "A New Plan to Conserve the Earth's Biota". BioScience. 35 (6): 334–336+341. doi:10.1093/bioscience/35.6.334. JSTOR 1309899.
- ^ Wilson, E. O.; Peter, F. M. (1988). Biodiversity. doi:10.17226/989. ISBN 978-0-309-03739-6. OCLC 42854996. PMID 25032475.[page needed]
- ^ Global Biodiversity Assessment: Summary for Policy-makers. Cambridge University Press. 1995. ISBN 978-0-521-56481-6. Annex 6, Glossary. Used as source by "Biodiversity", Glossary of terms related to the CBD Archived 10 September 2011 at the Wayback Machine, Belgian Clearing-House Mechanism. Retrieved 26 April 2006.
- ^ "COP16: Key outcomes agreed at the UN biodiversity conference in Cali, Colombia". Carbon Brief. 2 November 2024. Retrieved 3 November 2024.
External links
[edit]- Assessment Report on Diverse Values and Valuation of Nature by the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), 2022.
- NatureServe: This site serves as a portal for accessing several types of publicly available biodiversity data
- Biodiversity Synthesis Report (PDF) by the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA, 2005)
- World Map of Biodiversity an interactive map from the United Nations Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre
- Biodiversity Heritage Library – Open access digital library of historical taxonomic literature
- Biodiversity PMC – Open access digital library of biodiversity and ecological literature
- Mapping of biodiversity
- Encyclopedia of Life – Documenting all species of life on Earth.
Biodiversity
View on GrokipediaBiodiversity refers to the variability among living organisms from all sources, including terrestrial, marine, and other aquatic ecosystems and the ecological complexes of which they are part; this includes diversity within species, between species, and of ecosystems.[1] It manifests at multiple levels—genetic variation enabling adaptation within populations, species richness representing the total number of distinct organisms (with estimates of approximately 8.7 million eukaryotic species on Earth, though only about 2 million have been formally described), and ecosystem diversity encompassing habitats from coral reefs to rainforests that support interdependent biological communities.[2][3] This variability follows pronounced patterns, such as a latitudinal gradient where species richness peaks in tropical regions and declines toward the poles, reflecting underlying causal factors like energy availability, habitat stability, and evolutionary history.[4] Biodiversity underpins ecosystem functioning by enhancing resilience to perturbations, facilitating nutrient cycling, and providing essential services such as pollination for agriculture, water purification, soil formation, and regulation of atmospheric gases, all of which sustain human societies and economies.[5] Empirical studies demonstrate that higher diversity correlates with more stable productivity and resistance to species loss in experimental and natural systems, though functional redundancy among species can buffer some declines.[5] Over geological timescales, as traced in the Phanerozoic eon, biodiversity has fluctuated dramatically due to mass extinctions and radiations, with current levels elevated compared to much of deep time but facing anthropogenic pressures including habitat fragmentation, invasive species, and climate shifts that have contributed to observed declines in monitored vertebrate populations by an average of 73% since 1970.[4] Controversies persist regarding the pace of contemporary extinctions, with some analyses questioning whether rates exceed background levels when accounting for under-detection biases and the dominance of common species in inventories, emphasizing the need for robust, unbiased monitoring beyond institutionally influenced narratives.[6]
Definitions and Concepts
Core Elements
Biodiversity refers to the variability among living organisms from all sources, including terrestrial, marine, and other aquatic ecosystems, as well as the ecological complexes of which they are part; this encompasses diversity within species, between species, and among ecosystems.[1] The core elements of biodiversity are commonly delineated into three hierarchical levels: genetic diversity, species diversity, and ecosystem diversity, each contributing to the overall resilience and functionality of biological systems.[7] These levels reflect the structural and functional complexity of life, where genetic variation underpins adaptability, species interactions drive community dynamics, and ecosystem variation sustains broader environmental processes.[8] Genetic diversity constitutes the variation in genetic makeup within a population or species, arising from differences in alleles, genotypes, and gene frequencies.[9] It enables populations to adapt to environmental changes, resist diseases, and maintain evolutionary potential; for instance, higher genetic diversity in Pacific salmon populations buffers against climate variability and exploitation pressures through a "portfolio effect," where variable life-history traits stabilize overall productivity.[10] Loss of genetic diversity, as observed in isolated or bottlenecked populations, increases vulnerability to extinction, exemplified by the reduced adaptability in cheetahs due to historical low genetic variation from inbreeding.[11] Species diversity measures the number and relative abundance of species in a given area, incorporating both richness (total species count) and evenness (distribution of individuals among species).[12] Common metrics include species richness, which simply tallies distinct species; the Shannon index, which accounts for both richness and evenness by weighting rare species more heavily; and the Simpson index, which emphasizes dominance by abundant species and is less sensitive to rare taxa.[12] These indices reveal how species assemblages influence ecosystem stability, with diverse communities often exhibiting greater resistance to perturbations, such as invasive species or habitat alteration, due to functional redundancy among taxa.[13] Ecosystem diversity encompasses the variety of habitats, biological communities, and ecological processes within and across landscapes, including biotic interactions and abiotic factors like soil and climate.[14] Examples include the structural differences between coral reefs, temperate forests, and tundra biomes, each supporting unique assemblages that deliver services such as nutrient cycling, flood regulation, and carbon sequestration.[7] This level of diversity ensures landscape-scale resilience, as heterogeneous ecosystems can redistribute functions following disturbances; for example, diverse wetland mosaics in river basins mitigate erosion and filter pollutants more effectively than uniform habitats.[8] Disruptions to ecosystem diversity, such as fragmentation, cascade to lower levels by homogenizing genetic and species pools.[14]Historical Origins of the Term
The contracted term "biodiversity" originated in the mid-1980s as a shorthand for "biological diversity," coined by Walter G. Rosen, a biologist and program director at the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, during preparations for a major conference on species conservation.[15] Rosen proposed the term in 1985 to streamline discussions for the National Forum on BioDiversity, held in Washington, D.C., from September 21–24, 1986, which aimed to address accelerating species extinctions amid growing environmental concerns.[16] This forum, organized by the National Academy of Sciences and Smithsonian Institution, marked the term's public debut, emphasizing the totality of life's variation—from genes to ecosystems—rather than isolated species counts.[15] Prior to "biodiversity," the fuller phrase "biological diversity" appeared sporadically in scientific literature, with ecologist Thomas Lovejoy credited for its early advocacy in conservation contexts starting around 1980, during his work on habitat fragmentation in the Amazon.[17] Earlier instances trace to 1916, when botanist J. Arthur Harris used "biological diversity" in a Scientific American article on desert ecosystems, though without the modern conservation implications.[16] These precursors reflected a longstanding scientific interest in species variety, dating to 18th-century naturalists like Carl Linnaeus, but lacked a unified term until the 1980s urgency driven by documented habitat loss and extinction rates exceeding background levels by factors of 100 to 1,000.[15] The term gained rapid traction post-forum through the 1988 publication BioDiversity, edited by entomologist E.O. Wilson, which compiled proceedings and expanded the concept to underscore its role in ecosystem resilience and human welfare.[16] By the early 1990s, "biodiversity" permeated policy, as seen in the 1992 United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity, ratified by over 190 countries, formalizing it as a global priority amid empirical evidence of anthropogenic pressures like deforestation and pollution reducing species richness.[15] This evolution from ad hoc phrasing to standardized lexicon facilitated quantitative assessments, though debates persist on whether it overemphasizes taxonomic counts at the expense of functional ecological roles.[16]Measurement and Assessment
Species Estimation Methods
Nonparametric estimators, such as those developed by Anne Chao, use frequencies of rare species observed in samples to extrapolate total richness, assuming that unseen species are similarly rare. The Chao1 estimator, applied to abundance data (counts of individuals per species), calculates estimated richness as , where is the number of observed species, is the number of species observed once (singletons), and is the number observed twice (doubletons); this lower-bound approach performs well when rare species dominate but can underestimate if sampling is heterogeneous.[18] For incidence data (presence-absence across sampling units), the Chao2 estimator adapts this formula using singleton and doubleton incidences across units, providing robust estimates for inventory-style surveys.[19][20] Jackknife estimators employ resampling techniques to correct for undersampling bias. The first-order jackknife, , where is the number of sampling units, leverages singleton information and sensitivity to common species; the second-order version, , incorporates doubletons for improved accuracy in datasets with moderate rarity but risks negative adjustments if few singletons exist.[21] These methods, evaluated across simulated and empirical datasets, often outperform naive counts in communities with high proportions of rare taxa, though they assume random sampling and can inflate estimates in clustered distributions.[20][22] Rarefaction-extrapolation curves standardize richness comparisons by interpolating observed data to a common effort level and extrapolating asymptotically to predict totals, as implemented in tools like iNEXT, which fit smoothed curves to account for uneven sampling.[23] Parametric approaches, such as fitting asymptotic models (e.g., logarithmic or Michaelis-Menten functions) to rarefaction curves, offer confidence intervals but require assumptions about species abundance distributions that may not hold globally.[24] For planetary-scale estimates, hybrid methods integrate taxonomic hierarchies with Chao-style extrapolations from described species ratios across taxa, yielding figures like 8.7 million eukaryotic species total (with 1.2 million described as of 2011, updated minimally since due to discovery rates of ~18,000 annually).[6] Recent evaluations highlight that no single estimator universally excels; performance varies with rarity prevalence, favoring Chao variants for insect-heavy datasets and jackknife for vertebrates, with ongoing refinements addressing spatial autocorrelation and molecular data integration.[25][26]Diversity Metrics and Indices
Diversity metrics and indices provide quantitative assessments of biodiversity by capturing variations in species composition, abundance, and distribution within ecological communities. These tools extend beyond raw counts to incorporate evenness and relative abundances, enabling comparisons across sites, taxa, and scales, though they remain sensitive to sampling effort and methodological choices.[27][28] Species richness, denoted as S, represents the fundamental metric as the total number of species in a defined area or sample, serving as a baseline for diversity without accounting for abundance or dominance.[27] Despite its simplicity, richness correlates strongly with other indices in many datasets but underperforms in uneven communities where rare species inflate counts without reflecting functional equivalence.[29] Evenness quantifies how uniformly individuals are distributed among species, often calculated as J' = H'/ln(S), where H' is an entropy-based index and ln(S) normalizes for richness; high evenness indicates balanced abundances, while low values highlight dominance by few species.[28] Prominent composite indices integrate richness and evenness. The Shannon-Wiener index (H' = -∑(p_i * ln(p_i)), with p_i as the proportion of individuals of species i) derives from information theory, emphasizing rarity as it penalizes dominance and approaches maximum values in equitable communities; it is widely applied in ecological monitoring for its sensitivity to species turnover.[27][30] The Simpson index (D = 1 - ∑(p_i^2) or effective form 1/λ where λ = ∑p_i^2), conversely, focuses on dominance probability, giving greater weight to abundant species and proving robust to undersampling of rares, though less responsive to community breadth.[27][30]| Index | Formula | Key Characteristics | Common Applications |
|---|---|---|---|
| Shannon-Wiener (H') | H' = -∑(p_i ln p_i) | Entropy-based; sensitive to rare species; logarithmic scale | Community comparisons, rarefaction analyses[27] |
| Simpson (D) | D = 1 - ∑p_i^2 | Dominance-focused; less affected by sample size; bounded 0-1 | Probability-based assessments, dominance studies[27][30] |
Empirical Challenges and Biases
Empirical assessments of biodiversity face significant hurdles stemming from the immense scale and complexity of biological systems, including the incomplete cataloging of species and the logistical difficulties of comprehensive sampling. Global species richness estimates for eukaryotes range from 8.7 million, with only about 1.2 million formally described as of recent inventories, leaving vast uncertainties particularly for arthropods, fungi, and microorganisms that dominate numerical diversity.[37] Achieving accurate richness requires exhaustive surveys, yet rare or cryptic species often evade detection, leading to underestimates that can vary by orders of magnitude depending on sampling intensity.[37] Abundance data compounds these issues, as population sizes fluctuate seasonally and are influenced by detectability biases, where conspicuous species receive disproportionate attention while inconspicuous ones remain unquantified.[37] Sampling methodologies introduce further empirical constraints, such as the Wallacean shortfall—where distributions of known species are poorly mapped—and the Linnean shortfall of undescribed taxa, which hinder reliable trend analyses.[38] Standardized indices like Shannon or Simpson, which integrate richness and evenness, assume uniform ecological weighting but falter in heterogeneous environments, failing to capture functional redundancy or keystone roles that first-principles evaluation would prioritize over mere counts.[37] Temporal inconsistencies arise from sporadic monitoring, with long-term datasets often limited to accessible temperate regions, skewing perceptions of stability versus flux in unmonitored tropical or deep-sea realms.[39] Biases permeate biodiversity data, with geographic skews concentrating effort in northern latitudes and Europe/North America, undersampling biodiversity-rich tropics by up to 400% in some metrics and ignoring remote or politically unstable areas.[40] [41] Taxonomic preferences favor vertebrates and "charismatic" megafauna due to societal and funding priorities, correlating more strongly with public appeal than scientific rigor, while invertebrates and microbes—comprising over 99% of described species diversity—are systematically underrepresented.[42] Site-selection artifacts exacerbate trend distortions; for instance, citizen-science and museum records exhibit higher biases than protected-area monitoring, often sampling degraded or accessible sites preferentially, which can inflate apparent declines by 20-50% or more without effort standardization.[39] Marine data show analogous shallow-water bias, with depths below 30 meters severely under-explored, misrepresenting pelagic and abyssal contributions.[43] These challenges and biases undermine causal inferences in assessments, as uncorrected data propagate errors in policy-relevant reports from bodies like IPBES or IUCN, where institutional emphases on threat narratives—potentially amplified by funding incentives favoring decline documentation—may overlook recoveries or natural variability without transparent bias modeling.[38] [39] Corrective approaches, such as joint species distribution models or effort-adjusted rarefaction, mitigate but do not eliminate shortfalls, necessitating prioritized investment in underrepresented taxa and regions to align measurements with underlying ecological realities rather than observer-imposed distortions.[44]Global Patterns and Distribution
Latitudinal and Environmental Gradients
The latitudinal diversity gradient (LDG) refers to the well-documented pattern where species richness increases progressively from the poles toward the equator across terrestrial and marine taxa.[45] This gradient holds for diverse groups including plants, insects, birds, and mammals, with empirical analyses confirming a decline in species numbers at higher latitudes.[46] For instance, in temperate forest regions, herb, shrub, and tree species richness all decrease with increasing latitude, with herbs showing the highest overall richness but following the same directional trend.[47] Similarly, moss species richness exhibits a strong negative correlation with latitude when analyzed globally or by continents.[48] Multiple hypotheses explain the LDG, though no single mechanism accounts for it fully, emphasizing the interplay of ecological, evolutionary, and historical factors. Higher solar energy and net primary productivity in tropical regions correlate positively with species richness, potentially supporting more niches through increased resource availability and metabolic rates.[49] The tropical conservatism hypothesis posits that many lineages originated in the tropics and exhibit lower dispersal abilities to temperate zones, leading to higher diversification rates equatorward due to climatic stability over geological time.[50] Evidence from speciation and extinction rates supports elevated net diversification in tropics, though critiques note that ecological limits, such as carrying capacities varying with latitude, may better explain the pattern than time alone.[51][52] Environmental gradients beyond latitude, such as temperature, precipitation, and elevation, further modulate biodiversity patterns by imposing selective pressures and habitat heterogeneity. In marine systems, species richness declines both latitudinally and with depth, reflecting combined effects of temperature gradients and bathymetric constraints in the northwest Pacific and adjacent Arctic.[53] On land, productivity gradients drive richness, with higher values in stable, resource-rich environments fostering coexistence via niche partitioning.[54] Altitudinal gradients often mirror latitudinal ones, with diversity peaking at mid-elevations due to optimal temperature-productivity balances before declining toward summits from physiological limits.[55] These patterns underscore causal roles of abiotic filters, where harsher conditions at gradient extremes reduce viable population sizes and increase extinction risks.[56] Historical climate fluctuations have amplified current gradients by shaping range dynamics and lineage persistence.[57]Biodiversity Hotspots and Endemism
Biodiversity hotspots represent biogeographic regions featuring exceptionally high concentrations of endemic species, especially vascular plants, alongside extensive habitat degradation. The term was first delineated by ecologist Norman Myers in 1988 to identify priority areas for conservation amid global biodiversity decline, initially pinpointing 10 such regions based on plant endemism and threat levels.[58] This framework emphasizes irreplaceable assemblages of species shaped by evolutionary isolation, such as island-like habitats or topographic barriers, which foster unique adaptations but amplify extinction risks when ecosystems fragment.[59] Qualification as a hotspot requires meeting dual criteria: harboring at least 1,500 species of endemic vascular plants—comprising no less than 0.5% of global plant diversity—and having lost at least 70% of original primary vegetation, reflecting severe anthropogenic pressure from deforestation, agriculture, and urbanization.[60][61] As of 2022, Conservation International recognizes 36 hotspots, spanning continents like the tropical Andes, Indo-Burma, and the Cape Floristic Region, which collectively occupy about 2.5% of Earth's land surface.[61][62] These areas sustain more than 150,000 endemic plant species and over 40% of terrestrial vertebrate endemics, underscoring their disproportionate role in global biodiversity despite minimal intact habitat remaining—often less than 10% in many cases.[61][63] Endemism denotes the restriction of species to a defined geographic locale, arising from barriers to dispersal, divergent evolution, or niche specialization, which curtails gene flow and heightens susceptibility to local perturbations.[64] In hotspots, endemism rates exceed global averages by factors of 8–9 for plants and vertebrates on isolated landmasses, with islands alone amplifying this pattern due to founder effects and adaptive radiation.[64] This concentration—hotspots host roughly 77% of known endemic plants and 43% of endemic tetrapods—renders them critical refugia, yet their narrowed ranges exacerbate vulnerability, as modeled projections indicate 34–46% of endemics face over 80% range loss from climate shifts alone.[59][65] Conservation strategies thus target hotspots to safeguard evolutionary lineages, though critiques note the criteria's plant-centric bias may undervalue microbial or functional diversity.[59]Terrestrial vs Aquatic Realms
Terrestrial ecosystems harbor the vast majority of Earth's described eukaryotic species, with estimates indicating that approximately 84% of all named species occur on land, while aquatic environments—encompassing marine and freshwater realms—account for the remaining 16%.[66] This disparity arises primarily from the dominance of terrestrial arthropods, particularly insects, which comprise over 1 million described species, nearly all confined to land habitats, alongside vascular plants numbering around 369,000 species, also predominantly terrestrial.[3] In contrast, marine species total about 242,000 described as of 2022, including protists, chromists, bacteria, archaea, viruses, and multicellular organisms, with metazoans like arthropods and mollusks contributing significantly but still falling short of terrestrial totals.[67] Freshwater systems, covering less than 1% of Earth's surface, exhibit exceptionally high species richness per unit area—surpassing both terrestrial and marine habitats for certain taxa like amphibians and mollusks—but their overall contribution remains modest due to limited spatial extent.[68] Patterns of species distribution and diversity gradients differ markedly between realms. On land, biodiversity peaks in tropical regions with strong latitudinal gradients driven by factors such as solar energy availability, habitat heterogeneity, and historical stability, fostering high endemism in hotspots like rainforests. Aquatic systems show weaker or absent latitudinal gradients for many groups; for instance, aquatic plants display relatively flat species richness patterns compared to their terrestrial counterparts, influenced more by local hydrological and nutrient dynamics than broad climatic zonation. Marine biodiversity decreases with depth, from coastal shelves hosting diverse coral reefs and kelp forests to the abyssal plains with broader but sparser species ranges, reflecting adaptations to stable but resource-limited conditions. Freshwater biodiversity, conversely, is characterized by high fragmentation in rivers and lakes, promoting isolation and speciation but also vulnerability to barriers like dams.[69][70] Functional and compositional differences underscore these realms' distinct evolutionary trajectories. Terrestrial food webs emphasize detritus-based energy flows and complex plant-herbivore interactions, supporting vast microbial and invertebrate diversity, whereas aquatic webs, especially pelagic marine ones, are more size-structured with trophic levels correlating strongly to body size and reliance on primary production from phytoplankton. Endemism rates vary: terrestrial islands and montane regions exhibit high localized uniqueness, while marine endemism concentrates in isolated basins or seamounts, and freshwater taxa often show elevated rates (up to 30-50% in some drainages) due to vicariance. Empirical assessments reveal that while oceans cover 71% of Earth's surface and hold substantial biomass—dominated by microbes and fish—terrestrial realms sustain greater phylogenetic diversity across eukaryotes, with ongoing discoveries underscoring under-sampling in both but a persistent terrestrial skew in totals.[71][72]| Realm | Described Species (approx.) | Key Taxa Dominating Richness | Notes on Patterns |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terrestrial | 1.8–1.9 million | Insects (1+ million), plants (369,000), fungi | Strong tropical peaks; high endemism in forests |
| Marine | 242,000 | Arthropods, mollusks, fish (34,000) | Depth gradients; 91% estimated undescribed |
| Freshwater | Subset of aquatic (~100,000 animals/plants) | Amphibians, mollusks, insects | High per-area richness; fragmentation-driven speciation[2][68][3] |
Evolutionary History
Precambrian to Paleozoic Foundations
The Precambrian eon, encompassing the Hadean, Archean, and Proterozoic eras from Earth's formation around 4.6 billion years ago to 541 million years ago, established the biochemical and ecological prerequisites for biodiversity through the emergence of prokaryotic life, oxygenation of the atmosphere, and the advent of eukaryotes and simple multicellularity.[73] The oldest direct fossil evidence of life appears in microbial structures, such as stromatolites and biogenic carbon isotopes, dating to approximately 3.7 billion years ago in Greenland and Western Australia, indicating anaerobic bacteria capable of photosynthesis or chemosynthesis in shallow marine environments.[74][75] These early prokaryotes dominated for billions of years, forming microbial mats with limited morphological diversity, as evidenced by sparse fossil records showing no complex ecosystems until the Proterozoic.[76] A pivotal shift occurred during the Great Oxidation Event around 2.4 billion years ago, when cyanobacterial photosynthesis elevated atmospheric oxygen levels, enabling aerobic respiration and facilitating the evolution of more energy-efficient metabolisms.[77] Eukaryotic cells, characterized by organelles like mitochondria acquired via endosymbiosis, first appeared by 2.1–1.8 billion years ago, as indicated by fossilized protists and biomarkers, vastly expanding cellular complexity and genetic potential compared to prokaryotes.[77] Multicellularity emerged sporadically in the Proterozoic, with red algae fossils from 1.2 billion years ago and possible animal-like embryos from 600 million years ago, but biodiversity remained low, confined to microbial and algal communities punctuated by global glaciations like "Snowball Earth" events that stressed but did not eradicate life.[78] The Ediacaran period (635–541 million years ago) marked a transition with the Avalon, White Sea, and Nama assemblages of soft-bodied macroorganisms, reaching peak diversity around 560 million years ago; these included frond-like and discoidal forms, potentially early fungi, algae, or stem-group animals, thriving in low-oxygen marine settings and representing the first visible complex ecosystems, though their phylogenetic affinities remain debated due to lack of hard parts.[79][80] The Paleozoic era (541–252 million years ago) built on these foundations with explosive metazoan diversification, beginning with the Cambrian explosion around 541–520 million years ago, during which trace fossils and body fossils document the rapid origination of nearly all extant animal phyla, including arthropods, mollusks, echinoderms, and chordates, driven by ecological innovations like predation, biomineralization, and niche partitioning rather than a singular genetic trigger.[81][82] This event, spanning about 20–25 million years, increased beta diversity (turnover between habitats) as the primary driver of gamma diversity (total species richness), evidenced by lagerstätten like the Burgess Shale preserving diverse benthic faunas in deepening oceans.[83] The Ordovician period (485–443 million years ago) saw further radiation of marine invertebrates and early vertebrates (jawless fish), peaking in biodiversity before the end-Ordovician extinction at 445 million years ago, which eliminated ~85% of marine species amid glaciation and sea-level changes.[84] Silurian and Devonian periods (443–359 million years ago) witnessed colonization of land by vascular plants around 430 million years ago and arthropods, fostering terrestrial ecosystems, while reefs and forests expanded in the Carboniferous (359–299 million years ago), supporting amphibians and carbon sequestration via vast coal swamps.[84] The era concluded with Permian tetrapod diversification into reptiles and synapsids, setting stages for amniotic eggs, but biodiversity foundations were rooted in Cambrian-Ordovician marine radiations that established modular body plans and trophic structures persisting today.[85]Phanerozoic Diversifications and Extinctions
The Phanerozoic Eon, commencing around 541 million years ago with the Cambrian Explosion, witnessed a long-term net increase in global biodiversity, primarily tracked through marine invertebrate genera in Sepkoski's compendia, which document stepwise diversifications interspersed with mass extinctions.[86] This era's fossil record reveals an initial rapid radiation of metazoan phyla during the Early Cambrian (~541–521 Ma), establishing major animal body plans, followed by the Great Ordovician Biodiversification Event (~485–445 Ma), which doubled marine genus diversity through ecological innovation and habitat expansion.[87] Paleozoic diversity plateaued after these peaks, supported by stable origination rates amid varying extinction pressures.[88] Major mass extinctions punctuated this trajectory, with the "Big Five" events—end-Ordovician (~445 Ma, ~85% species loss), Late Devonian (~372 Ma, ~75% loss), end-Permian (~252 Ma, ~96% marine species extinction), end-Triassic (~201 Ma, ~80% loss), and end-Cretaceous (~66 Ma, ~76% loss)—driving profound biodiversity collapses, often linked to volcanism, anoxia, and climatic shifts.[89] The end-Permian event, the most severe, eliminated dominant Paleozoic faunas like trilobites and permitted Triassic recovery, though diversity remained suppressed until the Jurassic.[90] Mesozoic diversifications featured the rise of modern ecosystems, including calcifying plankton and reef-building rudists, culminating in high Cenozoic diversity driven by placental mammal radiations and angiosperm dominance post-Cretaceous.[91] Terrestrial biodiversity paralleled marine trends but lagged initially, with vascular plants colonizing land by ~430 Ma, arthropods and vertebrates following in the Devonian, and explosive diversification during the Carboniferous (~359–299 Ma) due to forest formation and atmospheric oxygenation.[92] Mass extinctions impacted continents less uniformly than oceans, as evidenced by selective survival of synapsids across the Permian-Triassic boundary, enabling mammalian ancestry.[93] Recovery phases post-extinction typically involved opportunistic taxa filling vacated niches, leading to elevated standing diversity over time, though sampling biases in the fossil record, such as the Signor-Lipps effect, complicate precise extinction magnitudes.[94] Overall, Phanerozoic patterns underscore biodiversity's resilience, with cumulative diversifications outpacing losses, resulting in modern levels exceeding Paleozoic peaks despite recurrent crises.[95]Quaternary Fluctuations
The Quaternary Period, commencing approximately 2.58 million years ago and extending to the present, featured pronounced climatic oscillations driven by Milankovitch forcings, manifesting as roughly 50 glacial-interglacial cycles with amplitudes of 4–7°C in global mean temperature and sea-level variations exceeding 120 meters. These fluctuations reshaped terrestrial and marine habitats, compelling species migrations, contractions into refugia during pleniglacials, and expansions in interstadials, thereby modulating local and regional biodiversity. Fossil proxies, including pollen assemblages and packrat middens, document biome shifts—such as steppe-tundra dominance in mid-latitudes during the Last Glacial Maximum (circa 26,500–19,000 years ago)—that compressed habitats and elevated extinction risks for range-restricted taxa, while fostering genetic bottlenecks and subsequent diversification in southern refugia like the Andes and Indo-Australian archipelago.[96][97][98] Marine biodiversity exhibited parallel dynamics, with glacial cooling enhancing productivity in high latitudes via dust fertilization and upwelling, supporting elevated planktic foraminiferal diversity, whereas interglacials triggered poleward shifts and depth migrations of benthic assemblages, contributing to pulsed speciation in tropical corridors. Terrestrial ecosystems saw elevated turnover rates, with palynological evidence from Eurasian lakes indicating 20–30% shifts in dominant plant taxa per millennium during transitions, influencing herbivore guilds and predator-prey structures. These cycles amplified endemism through vicariance, as seen in phylogeographic breaks aligning with glacial refugia in Europe (e.g., Iberian and Balkan peninsulas) and North America (e.g., southern Appalachians), where isolation promoted intraspecific divergence without mass extinctions prior to the terminal Pleistocene.[99][100][101] The period's biodiversity nadir occurred during the Late Pleistocene megafaunal die-off, extinguishing 72–86% of mammalian genera exceeding 44 kg in the Americas, 70% in Australia, and substantial fractions elsewhere between 50,000 and 10,000 years ago, alongside avian giants like moas and elephant birds. Empirical reconstructions from radiocarbon-dated fossils reveal extinction chronologies tracking Homo sapiens dispersals—e.g., Sahul losses by 46,000 years ago post-arrival, New Zealand by 600 years ago—more closely than deglaciation pulses or Younger Dryas cooling (12,900–11,700 years ago), implicating overhunting and fire-mediated habitat alteration as causal, with climate as a potentiator via reduced forage quality rather than sole driver. Synergistic models estimate human impacts accounted for 80–90% of variance in extinction probabilities, cascading to trophic downgrading: post-megafauna, North American small-mammal communities homogenized by 20–30% in beta-diversity, woody plant encroachment increased, and fire regimes stabilized, altering carbon dynamics.[102][103][104][105] Holocene interglacial warmth (initiated ~11,700 years ago) permitted partial recoveries, with artiodactyl radiations and agroecosystem emergences boosting anthropogenic biodiversity in domesticated lineages, yet legacy effects persist: modern genetic diversity in taxa like European trees reflects Quaternary range oscillations, with northern populations exhibiting lower heterozygosity from postglacial founder effects. Overall, these fluctuations underscore climate's role in disequilibrium dynamics, where rapid forcings outpaced evolutionary adaptation for specialists, contrasting stable Phanerozoic baselines and informing projections of anthropogenic warming's amplified risks.[106][107][108]Functional Roles
Ecosystem Stability and Resilience
Higher biodiversity generally enhances ecosystem stability, defined as the maintenance of function amid perturbations, primarily through increased resistance rather than resilience. Resistance minimizes deviation from baseline functioning, while resilience measures recovery speed post-disturbance. Experimental evidence from 46 grassland biodiversity manipulations shows that communities with 16–32 plant species experience roughly half the productivity change (~25%) during climate extremes compared to monocultures or low-diversity plots (~50%), demonstrating consistent resistance benefits across wet/dry, moderate/extreme, and brief/prolonged events.[109] However, these same experiments reveal no significant biodiversity effect on resilience, as productivity recovers to or exceeds pre-disturbance levels within one year irrespective of species richness.[109] Long-term field experiments further illustrate dynamic strengthening of biodiversity-stability links. In the 17-year Jena grassland experiment (2003–2019), species richness positively influenced aboveground net primary productivity (ANPP) and temporal stability (inverse coefficient of variation), with effects intensifying over time due to enhanced species complementarity and asynchrony after the initial decade.[110] Monocultures exhibited the sharpest ANPP declines and lowest stability, while 16-species mixtures sustained higher, more consistent output, underscoring how interspecies interactions buffer variability through resource partitioning and temporal niche differentiation. Functional redundancy—the presence of multiple species performing similar roles—reinforces this, with a meta-analysis of 32 studies finding positive associations with both community stability and disturbance resilience, as redundant species compensate for losses without functional collapse.[111] Observational patterns across natural systems corroborate experimental trends but highlight context dependency. Analysis of 57,606 vascular plant species over 11,527 grid cells in the Western Hemisphere revealed that higher species richness and phylogenetic diversity reduce ecosystem sensitivity to temperature variability, particularly seasonal fluctuations in temperature-limited biomes like tundra and taiga, stabilizing vegetation indices against interannual climate shifts.[112] Stability also emerges from disparities in diversity across trophic levels rather than aggregate species counts alone, as balanced predator-prey or producer-consumer diversities prevent dominance-driven oscillations.[113] Yet, such benefits vary by ecosystem and perturbation; for example, lake communities show no biodiversity-driven resilience gains and potential trade-offs where higher diversity aids resistance but slows recovery.[114] Overall, empirical data affirm biodiversity's stabilizing role via asynchrony and redundancy, though outcomes depend on disturbance nature, biotic structure, and environmental context, with experimental settings often amplifying effects beyond unmanipulated habitats.Provisioning and Regulating Services
Provisioning services derive from biodiversity through the harvest of biological resources essential for human sustenance and industry, including food, freshwater, timber, fibers, and biochemical compounds. Wild capture fisheries, reliant on marine and freshwater species diversity, contributed 13,950 kilotons of crude protein in 2018, accounting for 15.3% of global animal-derived protein supply. This biodiversity supports nutritional security, particularly in regions where fish constitutes the primary protein source for over one-third of the world's population, with small-scale inland fisheries potentially fulfilling up to 32% of animal protein intake for 146 million people in Africa and Asia. Genetic diversity from wild plants and animals has enabled crop breeding for resilience; for example, traits from wild relatives have improved yields and pest resistance in staples like wheat and rice, underpinning global agriculture. Biochemical provisioning includes pharmaceuticals, with over 50% of modern drugs originating from natural sources such as plant compounds and fungal metabolites.[115][116][117][118] Regulating services involve biodiversity-mediated processes that maintain environmental conditions conducive to human welfare, such as pollination, carbon sequestration, water purification, and erosion control. Insect pollination, supported by diverse pollinator taxa including bees and other insects, underpins approximately 35% of global crop production and generates an annual economic value of 127–152 billion USD worldwide. In the United States alone, these services add over 34 billion USD to agricultural output by ensuring fruit and seed set in crops like almonds and berries. Forest ecosystems with higher tree species diversity sequester over 70% more carbon than monocultures, enhancing long-term storage capacity; empirical models indicate that biodiversity loss from land-use change could diminish global terrestrial carbon stocks by 7.44–103.14 petagrams of carbon under varying scenarios. Diverse microbial and plant communities in soils and wetlands facilitate nutrient cycling and filtration, reducing pollutant loads in water supplies, while varied vegetation structures mitigate flood risks and soil erosion through root networks and litter cover. Systematic reviews confirm positive correlations between species richness, functional diversity, and the efficacy of these regulating functions, with empirical evidence from grasslands and forests showing that multi-species assemblages outperform low-diversity systems in service delivery under stress.[119][120][121][122][123]Economic and Utilitarian Values
Biodiversity underpins a substantial portion of global economic activity through provisioning services such as food, timber, fisheries, and pharmaceuticals. More than 50% of global GDP, equivalent to approximately $44 trillion in economic value as of 2022, relies on nature and its biodiversity.[124] These direct utilitarian values derive from species harvested or cultivated for human consumption and industry, with agriculture, forestry, and fisheries sectors exemplifying dependencies on diverse genetic resources and ecological interactions.[125] In agriculture, biodiversity supports crop productivity via pollination services from wild insects and genetic diversity for breeding resilient varieties. Pollinators contribute to the production of fruits, vegetables, seeds, and nuts, which constitute about 75% of global food crops and one-third of food production by volume.[126] Loss of pollinator diversity has been linked to reduced yields, underscoring the economic imperative of maintaining species richness in agroecosystems.[127] Similarly, fisheries benefit from biodiversity through enhanced stability and productivity; higher species diversity correlates with more consistent catches, as diverse assemblages buffer against environmental fluctuations and overexploitation of single stocks.[128] Pharmaceuticals and biochemicals draw from biodiversity, with an estimated 50,000-70,000 plant species used medicinally worldwide and marine organisms yielding compounds for drugs like antibiotics. Timber and non-timber forest products further contribute, with global forestry sectors generating revenues tied to sustainable harvesting of diverse tree species. Ecotourism, leveraging unique biodiversity for recreational value, generated around $216.5 billion in global revenue in 2023, supporting local economies in regions with high endemic species richness.[129] These utilitarian benefits highlight biodiversity's role in sustaining markets, though overreliance without conservation risks amplifying economic losses from species declines.[130]Current Dynamics
Estimated Species Totals and Discoveries
Estimates of Earth's total species richness vary due to challenges in sampling, taxonomic delineation, and the vast undescribed diversity in taxa like insects and fungi, but a widely referenced figure from probabilistic modeling places the number of eukaryotic species at approximately 8.7 million, with a range of 7.6 to 10 million.[131] [6] This estimate excludes prokaryotes, for which totals could reach trillions, though bacterial and archaeal "species" concepts differ fundamentally from multicellular taxa due to horizontal gene transfer and phenotypic plasticity.[6] Only about 14-20% of these eukaryotic species have been formally described, yielding roughly 1.2 to 2.2 million named species as of 2023-2024, depending on whether provisional or validated taxa are included.[6] [3] Breakdowns by major eukaryotic kingdoms highlight disparities in description rates. Animals are estimated at 7.77 million species (range 7.36-8.07 million), with over 1 million described, dominated by arthropods; insects alone may comprise 5.5 million undescribed species.[3] Plants total an estimated 390,000 species (range 298,000-482,000), with nearly all major vascular groups described, though tropical under-sampling persists.[3] Fungi are projected at 2.2-3.8 million species, but only about 150,000 described, reflecting cryptic diversity uncovered via molecular methods.[3] Protists add another 0.9-1.5 million estimated, with under 100,000 named, due to morphological convergence and habitat inaccessibility.[6]| Kingdom/Phylum Group | Estimated Total Species | Described Species (approx.) |
|---|---|---|
| Animals | 7.77 million | 1.1 million |
| Plants | 0.39 million | 0.32 million |
| Fungi | 2.2-3.8 million | 0.15 million |
| Protists | 0.9-1.5 million | <0.1 million |
Observed Trends in Diversity
Observed trends in species diversity reveal a complex picture, with confirmed extinctions remaining low relative to the total number of assessed species, while threats to many taxa have intensified. The IUCN Red List, updated in 2025, assesses 172,620 species, classifying 48,646 (approximately 28%) as threatened with extinction, including vulnerable, endangered, and critically endangered categories; this represents a near-doubling of threatened species from 24,422 in 2018 to 46,418 by 2025 for monitored groups.[137] [138] Confirmed extinctions since 1500 total around 900 for birds, mammals, and amphibians combined, with recent declarations including 31 species in the 2020 update and additional plants and invertebrates in subsequent assessments, though these figures likely underestimate losses for understudied invertebrates due to limited monitoring.[139] [140] Meta-analyses of long-term community time series indicate no statistically significant global trend in local species richness, with some datasets showing stability or even slight increases in temperate regions offsetting tropical declines, potentially due to biotic homogenization or species turnover rather than net loss.[141] [142] Human pressures, including land-use change and habitat alteration, have been linked to decreased local alpha diversity (species richness within sites) and shifts in community composition across terrestrial, freshwater, and marine ecosystems, as evidenced by global datasets spanning decades.[4] [143] For instance, vertebrate population abundances—while not direct measures of diversity—have declined by an average of 73% since 1970 according to the 2024 Living Planet Index, based on over 35,000 monitored populations, with freshwater systems showing the steepest drops at 85%.[144] [145] These abundance trends correlate with diversity shifts in some cases, such as disproportionate declines in formerly common species driving reductions in functional diversity.[146] Insect diversity exhibits regional variability, with European studies reporting biomass declines of up to 75% in protected areas over 27 years (1989–2016), but global syntheses reveal mixed signals, including no universal "insect apocalypse" and stable richness in some habitats due to invasive species influxes balancing native losses.[142] Plant diversity trends similarly show no net global change in richness but compositional shifts, with invasive species contributing to homogenization in human-modified landscapes.[141] Marine biodiversity monitoring highlights declines in coral reef species richness linked to bleaching events, yet fishery management has stabilized or increased diversity in some exploited fish stocks through reduced overharvesting.[4] Overall, empirical time-series data underscore uncertainty in aggregate diversity trends, with signals of decline often confounded by sampling biases, taxonomic gaps, and natural variability, contrasting with model-based projections of higher extinction risks.[143] [147]Natural Variability vs Human Influences
Biodiversity levels have fluctuated significantly throughout the Phanerozoic eon due to natural processes including climate shifts, tectonic activity, sea-level changes, and evolutionary radiations following mass extinctions. The fossil record indicates five major mass extinction events, such as the end-Permian event around 252 million years ago, which eliminated approximately 96% of marine species, driven by massive volcanism and associated environmental perturbations rather than biological factors alone.[91] These events were followed by recoveries where diversity rebounded through ecological innovations and expansions into vacant niches, demonstrating biodiversity's inherent dynamism independent of human intervention.[148] Background extinction rates, representing ongoing natural turnover, are estimated at 0.1 to 1 species per million species-years based on fossil data, varying by taxonomic group and influenced by ecological interactions like competition and predation.[149] In contrast, human influences since the Holocene, particularly accelerating post-Industrial Revolution around 1850, have introduced novel pressures through habitat alteration, resource extraction, and pollution. Land and sea use changes, including deforestation and urbanization, account for the majority of recent local biodiversity declines across ecosystems, altering community compositions and reducing species richness.[150] Direct exploitation, such as overfishing and hunting, has contributed to documented losses in vertebrates, with estimates suggesting hundreds of species extinctions attributable to these activities since 1500.[151] However, attributing causality requires distinguishing anthropogenic climate shifts from natural variability, as historical records show biodiversity responses to orbital cycles and volcanism that predate human emissions.[92] Debates persist regarding the extent to which current trends exceed natural variability, with some analyses claiming extinction rates 100 to 1,000 times background levels based on threatened species projections and IUCN Red List data.[152] Yet, peer-reviewed critiques highlight methodological issues, including under-sampling of invertebrates and over-reliance on modeled rather than observed extinctions, noting that verified extinctions rates have declined in recent decades despite ongoing pressures.[153] Studies from institutions prone to environmental advocacy may amplify crisis narratives, potentially overlooking recovery potentials observed in past geological perturbations or undercounting cryptic species persistence. Empirical evidence thus underscores human acceleration of losses but cautions against equating contemporary dynamics with unprecedented mass extinctions without accounting for incomplete taxonomic inventories and natural resilience mechanisms.[154]Primary Threats
Habitat Conversion and Fragmentation
Habitat conversion refers to the transformation of natural ecosystems into human-dominated landscapes, primarily through agricultural expansion, urbanization, and infrastructure development, which directly reduces the area available for native species.[155] Agriculture accounts for the majority of such conversion, with projections indicating an additional 1.3 million square miles of habitat will be turned into farmland by 2050 to meet global food demands.[155] Urbanization contributes by converting natural land covers into impervious surfaces, leading to the loss of contiguous habitats essential for species survival.[156] Globally, human activities have altered over 70% of ice-free land, predominantly for these uses.[157] Habitat fragmentation occurs when remaining natural areas are divided into smaller, isolated patches by barriers such as roads, fields, or settlements, often as a byproduct of conversion. Between 2000 and 2020, 34% of global protected areas experienced increased fragmentation, while 19% saw outright habitat loss.[158] Forest fragmentation rose in 51-67% of global forests over a similar period, with tropical forests showing higher rates at 58-80%.[159] Net global forest loss averaged 4.7 million hectares annually from 2010 to 2020, though gross deforestation rates were higher due to partial regrowth.[160] The biodiversity impacts of habitat conversion are predominantly negative and driven by area reduction, which limits population sizes, increases extinction risks, and disrupts ecological processes; empirical meta-analyses confirm large, consistent declines in species richness and abundance with habitat loss. In contrast, fragmentation per se—isolating patches while holding total area constant—exhibits weaker and more variable effects, with some studies finding neutral or even positive influences on local diversity through reduced competition, though overall patterns lean negative due to impaired dispersal and gene flow in habitat specialists.[161] These effects manifest at scales matching species' movement distances, exacerbating isolation in fragmented landscapes.[162] Human pressures from conversion and fragmentation have shifted community compositions and reduced local diversity across terrestrial, freshwater, and marine realms.[4]Resource Overexploitation
Resource overexploitation refers to the unsustainable harvesting of wild species for human use, including food, timber, medicine, and ornamental purposes, which depletes populations and disrupts ecosystems. This driver contributes to biodiversity loss by reducing species abundances, altering community structures, and increasing extinction risks, often exacerbating other threats like habitat fragmentation. Empirical assessments identify overexploitation as one of the five primary anthropogenic drivers of global biodiversity decline, alongside habitat conversion, pollution, invasive species, and climate change.[163][164] In marine environments, overfishing exemplifies resource overexploitation, with approximately one-third of assessed global fish stocks classified as overfished as of recent FAO evaluations, leading to collapsed populations and shifts in trophic dynamics. For instance, the removal of top predators like sharks and tunas has cascading effects, reducing prey control and promoting algal blooms or jellyfish dominance in affected ecosystems. Historical cases, such as the 1992 collapse of North Atlantic cod stocks due to decades of industrial trawling exceeding maximum sustainable yields, demonstrate how overharvesting can eliminate commercial viability and impair recovery, with cod biomass remaining below 10% of historical levels despite moratoriums.[165][166] Terrestrial forestry practices involving selective or illegal logging further drive overexploitation by targeting high-value timber species, which fragments habitats and reduces forest canopy integrity, thereby diminishing understory diversity. In tropical regions, unsustainable logging accounts for a significant portion of deforestation rates, with studies showing that logged forests exhibit 20-50% lower species richness in birds and mammals compared to intact areas due to selective removal and associated collateral damage from machinery. Illegal logging, comprising up to 30% of global timber trade in some estimates, amplifies these effects by evading regulations and enabling poaching access.[167] Wildlife trade and hunting, including bushmeat extraction and poaching for high-value products like ivory or rhino horn, pose acute risks to terrestrial vertebrates, affecting at least 24% of species and elevating extinction probabilities through population bottlenecks. In Central Africa, bushmeat hunting has caused biomass declines of over 60% in large mammals near human settlements, with more than 25% of hunted mammal species now threatened due to annual off-take rates exceeding reproductive capacities. Peer-reviewed analyses link such trade to verified extinctions or local extirpations in taxa like primates and ungulates, where demand-driven harvesting outpaces demographic recovery, particularly for slow-reproducing species.[168][169][170] Overall, overexploitation threatens 46% of IUCN-listed endangered or near-threatened species, with aquatic taxa facing it as their dominant peril due to high harvest volumes. Mitigation requires enforcing quotas, monitoring trade via CITES appendices, and substituting wild harvests with aquaculture or synthetics, though enforcement gaps persist in regions with weak governance. These patterns underscore causal links from human demand to ecological depletion, independent of confounding factors like habitat loss.[171][172]Pollution and Climate Shifts
Pollution from anthropogenic sources, including chemical contaminants, plastics, nutrients, and heavy metals, directly harms biodiversity by causing physiological damage, disrupting food webs, and altering habitats. In marine ecosystems, plastic debris affects nearly all species through ingestion, entanglement, and toxic leaching; estimates indicate it contributes to over 100,000 marine mammal deaths annually via starvation, internal injuries, and suffocation.[173] Microplastics, comprising 60-95% of marine litter, enter food chains and exacerbate risks across trophic levels, with fragmentation into nano-plastics amplifying bioaccumulation in fish and seabirds.[174] On land, air pollution—particularly ground-level ozone, nitrogen oxides, and sulfur dioxide—induces oxidative stress in plants, reducing photosynthetic efficiency and favoring nitrophilous species over diverse native flora, leading to measurable declines in vascular plant diversity in polluted regions of Europe.[175] Atmospheric nitrogen deposition from agriculture and industry eutrophies soils and waters, suppressing sensitive species and promoting algal blooms that deoxygenate aquatic habitats, with empirical data from U.S. ecosystems showing tipping points where biodiversity drops sharply beyond 10-20 kg N/ha/year.[176] These effects compound with other stressors, as evidenced by studies linking elevated pollutant loads to reduced invertebrate pollinator performance while pests remain resilient.[177] Climate shifts, driven by variations in temperature, precipitation, and extreme events, influence biodiversity through habitat mismatches, phenological disruptions, and range alterations, though observed extinction rates show no acceleration attributable to recent warming over the past two centuries. Analysis of historical records indicates plant and animal extinctions have slowed since the 19th century, with human activities like habitat loss remaining dominant drivers rather than climate alone; for instance, no empirical uptick in climate-linked extinctions appears in verified catalogs.[178] At current global warming of approximately 1.3°C above pre-industrial levels, species distribution models project only 1.6% of assessed species (about 160,000) facing extinction risk from direct climatic unsuitability, far lower than projections under high-emission scenarios.[179] Observed responses include partial range shifts, but fewer than half of documented cases (46.6%) align with expected poleward or elevational migrations, suggesting physiological limits or dispersal barriers constrain adaptation in many taxa.[180] Extreme events, such as heatwaves, disproportionately impact early-life stages of temperature-sensitive species, reducing recruitment in forests and coral reefs, as seen in empirical data from biodiversity hotspots where maximum temperatures correlate with local extirpations.[181] While models predict higher future risks—potentially one-third of species by 2100 under unmitigated warming—realized losses hinge on interactive threats like pollution, with standalone climate effects empirically modest to date.[182] The interplay of pollution and climate shifts amplifies vulnerabilities; for example, ocean acidification from absorbed CO2 combines with plastic toxins to heighten mortality in shellfish and corals, while warmer conditions accelerate pesticide breakdown into more bioavailable forms, intensifying terrestrial impacts. Recent syntheses across ecosystems confirm human pressures, including these drivers, have shifted community compositions and reduced local diversity, with marine and freshwater realms showing steeper declines than terrestrial ones due to cumulative pollutant loads.[4] Empirical monitoring underscores that while pollution delivers direct, quantifiable harms—such as ozone-induced foliar injury in 20-30% of European forests—climate shifts primarily manifest indirectly via altered interactions, with evidence favoring targeted pollutant controls over broad climatic attributions for reversing trends.[183]Biological Changes Beyond Loss
Invasive Species Dynamics
Invasive species, defined as non-native organisms that establish self-sustaining populations outside their native range and cause ecological, economic, or human health harm, represent a key driver of contemporary biodiversity alterations through rapid proliferation and disruption of native assemblages.[184] Globally, human-mediated transport has introduced over 37,000 alien species to new regions since the mid-20th century, with approximately 3,500 classified as invasive due to their detrimental effects, including the displacement of endemic taxa via competition for resources, predation, and habitat modification.[185] These dynamics often exhibit lag phases followed by exponential spread, as documented in analyses of 30 invasions across taxa like birds, fish, and plants, where population growth rates accelerate post-establishment due to high reproductive output and reduced biotic resistance from absent coevolved enemies.[186] Establishment success hinges on propagule pressure—the frequency and volume of introductions—combined with traits such as rapid growth, phenotypic plasticity, and tolerance to novel abiotic conditions, enabling invasives to exploit disturbed or vacant niches more effectively than many natives.[187] For instance, genetic mechanisms preserving high diversity during colonization, as seen in some plant and animal invasives, enhance adaptive potential and invasion probability.[187] Spread occurs via vectors like trade, transport, and mutualistic interactions; empirical models indicate that preferential seed dispersal by animals can amplify invasive plant expansion rates by 20-50% in fragmented landscapes.[188] In aquatic systems, species like the zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha), introduced to North American waters in the 1980s, demonstrate density-dependent dynamics where initial low abundances give way to billions of individuals per square kilometer, filtering vast water volumes and altering plankton communities.[189] Ecologically, invasives reduce native species richness by 20-50% in affected habitats through direct competition and indirect trophic cascades, though meta-analyses reveal variability: impacts intensify in islands and simplified ecosystems with fewer native competitors, contributing to 60% of documented extinctions where invasives acted as a primary or synergistic factor.[190][191] Co-invasions by multiple species exacerbate soil nutrient shifts and native plant diversity declines, as observed in studies of three co-occurring invasives altering microbial functioning and suppressing residents by up to 40%.[192] While some narratives overstate invasives as the dominant extinction driver—empirical records show fewer than 10% of bird and mammal extinctions directly attributable—their role in ongoing range contractions and functional homogenization of communities remains substantiated, particularly under compounded stressors like habitat loss.[193][150] These patterns underscore causal pathways where release from natural controls enables demographic booms, fundamentally reshaping biodiversity equilibria.Hybridization and Genetic Flows
Hybridization involves the interbreeding of individuals from distinct species or populations, producing offspring that can facilitate gene flow through introgression, where genetic material from one lineage integrates into another. Naturally, such events are constrained by pre- and post-zygotic barriers, yet they have driven evolutionary processes like hybrid speciation in plants and adaptive trait transfers in animals.[194] Human alterations to landscapes, including habitat fragmentation, species translocations, and invasive introductions, have intensified hybridization by removing these barriers and increasing encounters between previously isolated taxa.[195] In biodiversity contexts, hybridization often poses risks to endemic or endangered species via genetic swamping, wherein backcrossing dilutes unique alleles, eroding taxonomic distinctiveness and potentially hastening extinction. For example, among documented mammalian cases, rare species hybridizing with abundant relatives face elevated extinction threats, with human factors implicated in over 50% of husbandry-related and invasive-driven events.[196] [195] Notable instances include gray wolves (Canis lupus) interbreeding with coyotes (Canis latrans) in North America, complicating conservation by blurring species boundaries and altering ecological roles.[197] Similarly, anthropogenic gene flow has enabled invasive hybrids, such as polyploid cordgrasses (Spartina spp.) in coastal ecosystems, which outcompete natives and reshape community structure.[198] However, hybridization can confer benefits by injecting novel genetic variation, enhancing hybrid vigor or adaptability to environmental stressors. Intentional introgression, as in the 1995 introduction of Texas pumas to Florida panther populations, reversed inbreeding depression and boosted survival rates from 2% to over 20% in subsequent cohorts.[199] Recent genomic analyses of forest trees reveal hybrid introgression accelerating evolution of drought and heat tolerance traits, potentially buffering against climate shifts.[200] Gene flow via hybridization may also counter local extinctions by sustaining population viability in fragmented habitats.[201] Conservation strategies must balance these dynamics, often prioritizing removal of hybrids from pure lineages while recognizing context-dependent adaptive value; for instance, policies under frameworks like the U.S. Endangered Species Act evaluate cases individually, rejecting blanket prohibitions on human-mediated gene flow.[195] Empirical monitoring via genomic tools is essential to discern maladaptive versus beneficial introgression, informing interventions that preserve biodiversity without foreclosing evolutionary opportunities.[202]Acclimatization and Novel Ecosystems
Acclimatization encompasses the reversible phenotypic modifications that individual organisms undergo to tolerate altered environmental conditions, such as shifts in temperature, salinity, or nutrient availability, without requiring genetic changes.[203] These adjustments, driven by physiological, behavioral, or morphological plasticity, occur within the organism's lifetime and can enhance survival in fluctuating habitats.[204] In biodiversity contexts, acclimatization facilitates short-term resilience for populations facing anthropogenic pressures, particularly in long-lived species like perennial plants or marine invertebrates, where it buffers against immediate stressors like drought or ocean acidification.[205] Empirical observations demonstrate acclimatization's role in sustaining local diversity amid environmental perturbations; for example, certain fish species in warming freshwater systems exhibit enhanced thermal tolerance through metabolic reprogramming, averting acute population crashes.[204] However, this mechanism has finite bounds, as prolonged or extreme changes—such as those exceeding 2–3°C beyond historical norms—often surpass plasticity thresholds, compelling reliance on dispersal or evolutionary processes to avert biodiversity erosion.[206] Studies of past climate oscillations, including the Pleistocene transitions, reveal that while acclimatization aided transient survival, it infrequently prevented range contractions or extinctions when abiotic drivers intensified.[206] Novel ecosystems emerge when human activities— including habitat modification, species introductions, and climate forcing—yield biotic communities lacking historical precedents, featuring unprecedented species combinations and interaction networks.[207] First formalized by Hobbs et al. in 2006, these systems differ from hybrid ecosystems by crossing irreversible thresholds in abiotic or biotic drivers, rendering restoration to prior states infeasible without disproportionate effort.[208] Causal factors include intensified land conversion, as seen in 40–50% of global terrestrial surfaces altered since 1700, alongside non-native species establishments that acclimatize and dominate altered niches.[209] Illustrative cases encompass abandoned agricultural fields in the American Midwest colonized by invasive grasses forming stable but novel grasslands, or urban-industrial zones like derelict quarries supporting assemblages of exotic arthropods and pioneer plants.[210] Regarding biodiversity, systematic reviews indicate novel ecosystems often harbor elevated total species counts—up to 20–30% higher in some urban variants—yet exhibit diminished native diversity and disrupted co-evolutionary dynamics, with invasives comprising 50–80% of biomass in affected areas.[211] [212] Trophic structures may simplify, reducing functional redundancy; for instance, in altered wetlands, acclimatized non-natives fill herbivore roles but fail to sustain specialist pollinators, yielding uneven ecosystem service provision like variable carbon sequestration rates 10–25% below historical benchmarks.[211] Conservation implications hinge on empirical variability: while some novel configurations demonstrate self-sustaining productivity, as in eucalypt-invaded Australian woodlands supporting viable bird communities, others amplify vulnerability to secondary disturbances, underscoring the need for context-specific assessments over blanket rejection or acceptance.[212] Acclimatization within these systems can stabilize novel assemblages, enabling opportunistic native recolonization in 15–20% of monitored cases, though genetic dilution via hybridization often constrains long-term viability.[213] Management paradigms increasingly incorporate novelty, prioritizing resilience metrics over fidelity to baselines, informed by evidence that rigid historical restoration overlooks adaptive potentials in human-dominated landscapes covering over 75% of ice-free Earth.[214]Conservation Strategies
Protected Areas and Reserves
Protected areas and reserves are designated terrestrial, marine, or freshwater regions managed primarily to conserve biodiversity, ecosystems, and ecological processes. These areas aim to limit human activities that could degrade habitats, such as logging, mining, and urbanization, thereby preserving species populations and genetic diversity. The first modern protected area, Yellowstone National Park in the United States, was established in 1872, marking the beginning of systematic efforts to safeguard natural landscapes from exploitation. Since then, the global network has expanded significantly, driven by international frameworks like the Convention on Biological Diversity. The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) classifies protected areas into six management categories based on objectives, ranging from strict nature reserves (Category Ia) with minimal human intervention to sustainably managed areas (Category VI) allowing resource use compatible with conservation. As of 2024, approximately 17.5% of Earth's land and inland waters, along with 8.5% of oceans and coastal areas, fall under protected status or other effective area-based conservation measures, according to data from the World Database on Protected Areas.[215] This coverage supports the "30x30" target under the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, aiming for 30% protection by 2030, though progress varies by region with higher concentrations in temperate zones compared to biodiversity-rich tropics. Empirical assessments indicate mixed effectiveness in halting biodiversity loss. A 2024 study analyzing global habitat data found protected areas reduced habitat loss by 33% relative to unprotected lands, particularly in resisting deforestation, but their influence diminishes near human settlements due to spillover pressures like poaching and pollution.[216] Similarly, vertebrate populations inside protected areas declined at 0.4% annually from 2000 to 2020, five times slower than the 2% rate outside, suggesting benefits for certain taxa but insufficient to reverse overall trends driven by climate shifts and overexploitation.[217] For tropical forest birds, protected areas have prevented the replacement of specialist species with generalists, preserving functional diversity.[218] However, systematic reviews highlight that many areas, especially in low-governance regions, fail to mitigate threats like invasive species or illegal resource extraction due to inadequate funding and enforcement.[219] Enforcement challenges persist, with illegal activities causing biodiversity declines comparable to or exceeding those in unprotected areas in some cases, as evidenced by ongoing habitat degradation within nominally protected forests in Southeast Asia and Africa.[220] Climate change exacerbates vulnerabilities, as species ranges shift beyond fixed boundaries, and extreme events like wildfires bypass protections.[221] Despite these limitations, well-managed reserves demonstrate causal links to sustained populations of endangered species, underscoring the need for integrated approaches combining strict zoning with community involvement and monitoring to enhance outcomes.[222]Restoration Techniques
Ecological restoration techniques aim to recover biodiversity in degraded habitats by reinstating native species assemblages, ecological processes, and ecosystem functions disrupted by human activities such as agriculture, urbanization, and resource extraction. These methods encompass both active interventions, like planting native vegetation and reintroducing species, and passive approaches, such as protecting sites from further disturbance to allow natural regeneration. Empirical meta-analyses indicate that terrestrial restoration efforts typically boost biodiversity metrics—such as species richness and abundance—by an average of 20% compared to unrestored degraded controls, while also stabilizing variability across sites.[223] Active restoration often involves site preparation, including the removal of invasive species and soil remediation, followed by the propagation and planting of indigenous flora to accelerate succession and provide habitat structure. For instance, in forested landscapes, assisted natural regeneration through seeding or transplanting canopy trees and understory plants has demonstrated positive effects on avian and invertebrate diversity, though full trophic recovery may require decades. Rewilding, a subset of active techniques, focuses on reintroducing keystone species—such as large herbivores or predators—to restore trophic cascades and habitat heterogeneity; studies in temperate and grassland systems show rapid biodiversity gains, with some metrics recovering within 5–10 years under favorable conditions. Network-based strategies prioritize reintroductions based on species' ecological connections, maximizing recovery efficiency in collapsed food webs by up to 30% in simulated models validated against field data.[224][225] Passive restoration techniques, emphasizing minimal human intervention, rely on natural processes like seed banks and dispersal to rebuild communities, often combined with exclusion of grazing or fire suppression. In open ecosystems, such as savannas, passive methods have proven effective for grass and forb diversity restoration, with success rates comparable to active planting in 60–70% of cases when barriers to regeneration (e.g., overgrazing) are removed. However, outcomes vary widely: coastal habitat restorations exhibit high variability in faunal responses, with only partial recovery in community structure for 40–50% of projects, underscoring the influence of local hydrology and substrate quality. Marine habitat restorations, including oyster reef and seagrass bed rebuilding, achieve success in approximately 91% of interventions but frequently fall short of pre-degradation biodiversity levels due to larval supply limitations.[226][227][228] Stepwise frameworks, such as the Stepwise Ecological Restoration (STERE) approach, integrate diagnostics of degradation causes with phased interventions—starting with stabilizing abiotic conditions before biotic enhancements—to improve long-term viability amid climate variability. Monitoring is critical, as restoration can inadvertently favor certain taxa over others, potentially reducing overall diversity if not adaptive; for example, targeting single ecosystem services like carbon sequestration may conflict with biodiversity goals by promoting monocultures. Despite these challenges, aggregated evidence from global reviews confirms that restoration enhances multifunctionality, including pollination and soil health, provided interventions align with site-specific historical ecology rather than idealized baselines.[229][230][223]Market-Based and Technological Interventions
Payments for ecosystem services (PES) schemes compensate landowners for maintaining or enhancing biodiversity-related services, such as watershed protection or habitat preservation. In China's Grain for Green Program (GTGP), implemented since 1999, PES payments led to increased forest cover and understory plant diversity in treated areas compared to controls, with studies documenting rises in species richness post-implementation.[231] Similarly, Costa Rica's PES program, established in 1997, has enrolled over 1 million hectares of forest by 2020, correlating with national forest cover recovery from 21% in 1987 to 52% in 2010, though attribution to PES alone is debated due to concurrent policy changes.[232] Effectiveness varies; a global review of PES programs found 54% reinforced intrinsic conservation motivations while 42% crowded them out, potentially undermining long-term participation without addressing root economic drivers.[233] Biodiversity offsets require developers to compensate for habitat loss by funding equivalent gains elsewhere, often through banking systems. In the United States, wetland mitigation banking under the Clean Water Act has restored over 100,000 hectares since the 1990s, but peer-reviewed assessments indicate offsets frequently fail to achieve no-net-loss due to time lags in restoration success and metric inadequacies, with only partial equivalence in ecological functions.[234] A 2023 analysis of offset principles emphasized the need for strategic site selection and monitoring to avoid underperformance, as offsets in complex ecosystems like old-growth forests rarely replicate pre-impact biodiversity.[235] Market-based instruments like offsets can enhance cost-efficiency over regulations but risk greenwashing if enforcement is weak, as evidenced by variable outcomes in Australian and European schemes where offset sites showed lower species persistence than impacted areas.[236][237] Sustainable certification schemes, such as the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) for timber and Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) for fisheries, use market premiums to promote practices preserving biodiversity. FSC-certified forests, covering 250 million hectares globally as of 2023, exhibit neutral overall effects on taxa abundance but positive associations with mammal populations and tree/shrub richness in high-deforestation regions like Brazil and Indonesia.[238][239] A meta-analysis of 50 studies found geographic biases, with stronger benefits in temperate zones than tropics, and highlighted knowledge gaps for invertebrates and fungi.[240] MSC-certified fisheries, operational since 1998, have certified over 400 stocks by 2024, correlating with stock recoveries in cases like New Zealand hoki (biomass doubling post-certification), though critics note certification may not prevent overfishing in data-poor contexts without rigorous audits.[241] Technological interventions leverage innovations for monitoring, restoration, and invasive species control. Environmental DNA (eDNA) sampling detects species from water or soil traces without direct observation, enabling rapid biodiversity inventories; field trials in European rivers identified 80-90% more fish species than traditional netting, facilitating targeted conservation.[242] Combined with artificial intelligence (AI), eDNA analysis processes vast datasets for real-time ecosystem assessment, as in projects automating species detection with 95% accuracy in tropical forests.[243][244] AI-driven camera traps and acoustic sensors have reduced poaching incidents by 50% in African reserves through predictive patrols, while satellite imagery with machine learning tracks deforestation at 30-meter resolution globally.[245] Gene drives, using CRISPR to spread sterility or lethal traits, target invasive species threatening biodiversity; trials for rodent eradication on islands aim to restore native ecosystems, with modeling predicting 90% population suppression in small populations. However, ecological risks include non-target effects and resistance evolution, limiting deployment to contained trials as of 2025.[246] These tools enhance precision but require integration with policy to avoid overreliance, as technological fixes alone cannot address habitat loss drivers.[247]Policy and Societal Dimensions
International Agreements
The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), adopted on May 22, 1992, at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro, serves as the cornerstone international treaty addressing biodiversity, with 196 parties committed to its three core objectives: conserving biological diversity, promoting sustainable use of its components, and ensuring fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from genetic resources. The CBD encompasses ecosystems, species, and genetic diversity, and has spawned supplementary protocols, including the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (adopted January 29, 2000, effective September 11, 2003) regulating living modified organisms, and the Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and Benefit-Sharing (adopted October 29, 2010, effective October 12, 2014), which aims to prevent biopiracy through mandatory benefit-sharing agreements. Despite these frameworks, assessments indicate limited effectiveness; for instance, the CBD's Aichi Biodiversity Targets (2010–2020) were not met globally, with only six of 20 targets fully achieved, as habitat loss and overexploitation persisted amid weak enforcement and insufficient national implementation. In December 2022, at the fifteenth Conference of the Parties (COP15) to the CBD in Montreal, parties adopted the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF), establishing four long-term goals for 2050—such as sustainable use and full integration of biodiversity into societal decisions—and 23 actionable targets for 2030, including protecting 30% of terrestrial and marine areas, reducing pollution and subsidies harmful to biodiversity by at least $500 billion annually, and mobilizing $200 billion per year in funding by 2030.[248] The GBF builds on prior strategic plans but faces skepticism regarding achievability, as it relies on voluntary national targets without binding enforcement mechanisms, and empirical trends show ongoing species declines despite similar past commitments.[249] Complementing the CBD, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), signed March 3, 1973, and entering into force July 1, 1975, regulates international trade in over 38,000 species listed in three appendices based on threat levels, with 184 parties as of 2023.[250] CITES has documented successes, such as trade bans contributing to African elephant population stabilization post-1989 ivory prohibition and regulated sustainable harvests for species like Nile crocodiles, which recovered in some ranges through ranching programs approved since the 1990s.[250] However, critics highlight persistent illegal trade—estimated at $7–23 billion annually—and implementation gaps, including inadequate national legislation in some parties and challenges in verifying trade sustainability, as evidenced by ongoing declines in species like pangolins despite Appendix I listings.[251] The Ramsar Convention on Wetlands, signed February 2, 1971, in Ramsar, Iran, and effective December 21, 1975, is the oldest global environmental treaty dedicated to wetland conservation and wise use, with 172 contracting parties designating 2,543 sites covering 256 million hectares as of 2023.[252] It has facilitated protections for migratory waterbirds, concentrating nearly half of Mediterranean Basin wintering populations in just 7% of the land area under Ramsar sites, and spurred national restoration efforts, such as wetland revivals in Europe and Asia.[253] Outcomes remain mixed, with global wetland loss continuing at 35% since 1970 due to conversion for agriculture and urbanization, underscoring enforcement limitations and the need for better integration with development policies.[252] These agreements collectively form a fragmented governance architecture, where progress in awareness and site designations contrasts with empirical shortfalls in halting biodiversity erosion, often attributable to sovereignty-respecting designs that prioritize consensus over sanctions.[254]National Regulations and Enforcement
In the United States, the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 mandates the protection of threatened and endangered species and their habitats, prohibiting activities such as taking, possessing, or selling listed species without permits, with enforcement primarily handled by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS).[255] As of October 2020, 2,363 species were listed as endangered or threatened, with the Act credited for recovering 73 species, including the bald eagle and American alligator, through habitat safeguards and anti-poaching measures.[256] [257] However, enforcement faces challenges, including delayed listings—only 54 species delisted as recovered in nearly 50 years—and resource constraints, with critics noting that listings often occur after significant population declines, limiting proactive conservation.[258] In the European Union, national enforcement of biodiversity regulations stems from the Birds Directive (1979) and Habitats Directive (1992), which require member states to protect wild bird species and key habitats through site designations like Special Protection Areas (SPAs) and Special Areas of Conservation (SACs), with strict prohibitions on deliberate disturbance or destruction.[259] [260] Enforcement occurs via national authorities, supported by EU infringement proceedings; for instance, a 2018 assessment found that while the directives have stabilized some bird populations, implementation gaps persist in 18 member states, with ongoing habitat degradation due to inconsistent monitoring and penalties.[261] Studies indicate mixed efficacy, with protected species showing improved conservation status in targeted areas but broader biodiversity declines where enforcement relies on voluntary compliance rather than rigorous inspections.[262] Brazil's National System of Nature Conservation Units (SNUC), established by Law No. 9,985 in 2000, designates protected areas covering about 18% of the country's territory and regulates biodiversity access under the 2001 Provisional Measure on Genetic Heritage, yet enforcement remains weak amid high deforestation rates—over 1.3 million hectares lost in the Amazon in 2022 alone—due to underfunded agencies, corruption, and land grabbing invasions.[263] [264] Illegal logging and poaching persist despite penalties, with a 2022 study highlighting that while laws exist on paper, actual prosecution rates for environmental crimes hover below 10%, undermining biodiversity safeguards in hotspots like the Atlantic Forest.[265] China's Wildlife Protection Law, revised in 2022 and effective from May 2023, classifies species into protection levels and bans unauthorized capture, trade, or utilization, with enforcement by forestry bureaus and public security organs imposing fines up to RMB 1 million and criminal penalties for severe violations.[266] The law has led to crackdowns, such as nationwide operations reducing illegal pet bird trade for protected species by significant margins post-2020, but challenges include persistent illegal wildlife trade—estimated at billions annually—and loopholes allowing captive breeding of endangered animals like tigers, which critics argue sustains demand without aiding wild populations.[267] [268] Enforcement data show increased seizures, yet low conviction rates and regional inconsistencies indicate that while penalties have stiffened, systemic issues like market demand and weak rural oversight limit overall effectiveness.[269] Across nations, biodiversity enforcement often falters due to inadequate funding—e.g., U.S. USFWS budgets cover only a fraction of needed patrols—and reliance on reactive measures rather than preventive monitoring, with global studies showing that unprotected areas adjacent to regulated zones experience spillover habitat loss.[270] Effective cases, like Costa Rica's 1998 Biodiversity Law integrating payments for ecosystem services with strict access controls, demonstrate that combining legal prohibitions with economic incentives and community involvement can enhance compliance, though scalability remains debated.[271]Economic Incentives vs Regulatory Burdens
Economic incentives for biodiversity conservation, such as payments for ecosystem services (PES), aim to align private interests with environmental goals by compensating landowners for maintaining habitats or avoiding deforestation. Empirical evaluations of PES programs indicate variable but often positive outcomes; for instance, China's Grain-to-Green Program (GTGP), implemented since 1999, increased forest cover and enhanced plant and wildlife diversity in participating areas, with understory plant cover rising significantly post-implementation.[231] Similarly, a PES scheme in Uganda from 2010 reduced deforestation rates and promoted reforestation, though net impacts were modest due to baseline comparisons.[272] These programs demonstrate cost-effectiveness in targeting high-value areas voluntarily, with transaction costs potentially high initially but declining over time.[273] However, evidence also reveals risks of motivation crowding-out, where 42% of reviewed PES projects weakened intrinsic conservation drives by framing stewardship as transactional.[233] Regulatory burdens, exemplified by strict habitat protections under laws like the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, impose mandatory restrictions on land use, development, and resource extraction to safeguard biodiversity. Such measures have preserved critical species and ecosystems but at substantial economic costs; revisions to ESA rules in 2019 sought to alleviate burdens on landowners by streamlining consultations and reducing litigation-driven delays, reflecting criticisms that overly prescriptive regulations hinder economic activity without proportional biodiversity gains.[274] Compliance with biodiversity regulations often elevates operational costs for industries like agriculture and forestry, potentially displacing activities to less-regulated regions and generating "off-stage" ecosystem burdens elsewhere, such as increased habitat loss abroad.[275] Analyses of conservation sites show that while regulatory protections can yield net benefits in carbon storage and services exceeding opportunity costs in select cases, high enforcement expenses and forgone development revenues frequently tip the balance toward net economic losses.[276] Comparative studies favor hybrid approaches where incentives complement regulations, as pure command-and-control methods struggle with enforcement in developing contexts and may stifle innovation, whereas incentives like mitigation banking or biodiversity credits scale more efficiently by internalizing externalities.[277][278] For example, regulatory assurances paired with PES enhance participation by mitigating liability fears, outperforming standalone incentives in land stewardship.[278] OECD assessments emphasize redirecting harmful subsidies—estimated at hundreds of billions annually toward biodiversity-degrading activities—toward positive incentives to achieve global targets like those in the Kunming-Montreal Framework, arguing that unaligned economic signals perpetuate habitat decline more than isolated regulations.[279] Empirical gaps persist, with calls for rigorous evaluations to quantify long-term efficacy, as non-randomized regulatory impacts often evade standard metrics.[280] Overall, incentives prove more adaptable to local contexts and economically viable, though regulations remain essential for baseline protections against free-riding.Controversies and Debates
Exaggeration of Extinction Risks
Proponents of heightened extinction alarmism often invoke the notion of a "sixth mass extinction" underway, asserting rates 100 to 1,000 times the geological background, driven primarily by habitat destruction and climate change.[151] However, documented extinctions since 1500 total approximately 800 to 900 species across all taxa, equating to less than 0.05% of the roughly 2 million described species, with no new vertebrate extinctions recorded in recent IUCN assessments.[281] [282] These figures derive from rigorous verification by bodies like the IUCN, contrasting sharply with model-based predictions of 8,700 extinctions per year or 150 per day, which rely on unverified extrapolations from limited vertebrate data to the broader biosphere.[281] The bulk of verified extinctions—over 90% of vertebrate cases—have occurred on isolated oceanic islands, where small populations face stochastic risks amplified by introduced species, rather than representing continental or global trends.[283] Empirical observations challenge habitat loss models assuming deterministic species-area relationships; for instance, El Salvador experienced 90% deforestation yet lost only three of 508 forest bird species, while Puerto Rico's 99% forest reduction resulted in just seven native bird extinctions.[281] Marine environments show even lower rates, with only 24 documented extinctions historically and none among open-ocean species in the past 50 years, attributable to greater dispersal and connectivity.[281] Forecasts of catastrophic losses have repeatedly overstated realities; predictions such as Norman Myers' 1979 estimate of 1 million species extinct by 2000 or Al Gore's 1992 claim of 40,000 annual extinctions failed to materialize, yielding actual rates below two terrestrial animal species per year over five centuries.[283] Such discrepancies arise from overreliance on precautionary modeling that underweights species resilience, adaptive behaviors, and potential offsets via speciation or rediscoveries—e.g., the Guadalupe fur seal, presumed extinct, now numbers over 20,000 individuals.[281] Critiques highlight systemic incentives for alarmism within academia and advocacy, where exaggerated threats secure funding and policy leverage, despite sparse empirical validation for most taxa like insects, where only 1-2% have been assessed.[283] Recent 2025 analyses further contend that while localized population declines warrant concern, aggregate extinction rates do not yet satisfy mass extinction criteria—typically 75% species loss over geologically brief intervals—confining the narrative to speculation rather than fact.[284] [285] This divergence underscores the need to prioritize verified data over projective models, particularly given biases in institutions prone to amplifying risks for institutional gain.Prioritization Conflicts
Prioritization conflicts in biodiversity conservation often stem from the tension between preserving ecological integrity and accommodating human imperatives like food security, poverty reduction, and infrastructure expansion, particularly in developing regions where land scarcity amplifies competition.[286] These conflicts manifest as spatial overlaps between high-biodiversity areas and zones prioritized for agricultural intensification or resource extraction, where conversion of natural habitats can yield short-term economic gains but long-term ecological losses.[287] Empirical analyses indicate that up to 30% of global cropland expansion between 2000 and 2040 is projected to occur in biodiversity hotspots, exacerbating risks in 10 countries including Brazil, Indonesia, and the Democratic Republic of Congo.[288] Agriculture represents a primary arena of conflict, as expanding cultivation for staples and cash crops frequently encroaches on irreplaceable ecosystems, creating trade-offs between yield increases and species loss.[289] In the Brazilian Cerrado, for instance, soybean production has driven deforestation rates averaging 7,000 square kilometers annually from 2001 to 2020, prioritizing export revenues over endemic species habitats despite co-benefits in some carbon sequestration scenarios.[287] Similarly, mining operations overlap with intact forests in approximately one-third of active sites worldwide, as seen in Madagascar's biodiversity hotspots where nickel extraction supports economic growth but fragments habitats for unique endemics like lemurs, with environmental costs including soil erosion and water contamination outweighing localized livelihood alternatives in many cases.[290] [291] Within conservation efforts themselves, prioritization dilemmas arise when selecting focal species or ecosystems, often favoring charismatic megafauna over less visible but functionally critical components like pollinators or soil microbes, potentially skewing resource allocation away from broader resilience.[292] Hotspot-based strategies, which target areas with exceptional endemism such as the Cape Floristic Region, can inadvertently neglect diffuse threats in non-hotspot regions or undervalue ecosystem services like watershed protection in favor of species counts.[293] In Africa, socio-economic development imperatives further complicate choices, as protected areas intended for biodiversity sometimes restrict local access to resources, heightening human-wildlife conflicts and undermining community support without adequate compensation mechanisms.[294] These tensions underscore the need for spatially explicit planning that quantifies opportunity costs, though data gaps in baseline biodiversity metrics persist.[295]Conservation Efficacy and Unintended Consequences
A 2024 meta-analysis of 186 studies encompassing 665 conservation interventions found that such actions improved biodiversity states or slowed their decline in 66% of cases compared to scenarios without intervention, providing empirical support for the efficacy of measures like protected areas, invasive species control, and sustainable harvesting.[296][297] This analysis, spanning terrestrial, freshwater, and marine systems, indicated that interventions were more effective when targeted at specific threats rather than broadly applied, though effectiveness diminished in highly degraded habitats.[296] Protected areas, a cornerstone of conservation, have demonstrated variable success in preserving biodiversity; a 2019 global assessment of over 2,000 sites showed they reduced deforestation rates by an average of 28% relative to unprotected lands, yet only 40-50% exhibited positive biodiversity trends due to factors like poor enforcement and surrounding land-use pressures.[298][219] In the United States, the Endangered Species Act has prevented extinction for 99% of listed species since 1973, but full recovery has occurred in just 3% of cases as of 2023, highlighting proficiency in stabilization over restoration.[299][300] Wildlife reintroduction programs, conversely, report success rates of 26-32% globally, often failing due to inadequate habitat suitability or ongoing threats.[301] Conservation efforts can produce unintended consequences that offset gains or generate new harms. "Leakage" occurs when protections displace threats to unprotected areas; for instance, a 2025 study documented that Amazon protected areas reduced local deforestation by 20-30% but increased it by 5-10% in adjacent frontiers, amplifying net biodiversity loss in vulnerable regions.[302] Intentional species translocations for recovery have led to unintended ecological disruptions in 25-40% of reviewed cases, including disease transmission—such as chytrid fungus spread via amphibian reintroductions—or competitive exclusion of native taxa.[303][304] Market-based policies, like payments for ecosystem services, sometimes yield perverse outcomes; a 2016 analysis found that biodiversity offsets in mining regions inadvertently boosted habitat conversion elsewhere by inflating land values and incentivizing speculation.[305] Rebound effects further complicate efficacy, as seen in policies curbing one threat (e.g., overfishing quotas) while enabling others (e.g., increased bycatch via redirected effort), with meta-reviews estimating such inefficiencies reduce overall impact by 10-20%.[306] Social repercussions, including livelihood restrictions in protected areas, have fueled poaching and anti-conservation sentiment in regions like sub-Saharan Africa, where human-elephant conflicts rose 30% post-expansion of reserves between 2000 and 2020.[307] These outcomes underscore the need for integrated assessments balancing ecological targets with causal chain analyses of human behavioral responses.[308]Future Trajectories
Projection Models and Uncertainties
Species distribution models (SDMs), such as generalized additive models and random forests, predominate in biodiversity projections by linking species occurrences to environmental predictors like climate and land use to forecast range shifts and habitat suitability under future scenarios.[309] Ensemble approaches aggregate multiple SDMs with global circulation models (GCMs) and representative concentration pathways (RCPs) to estimate changes for thousands of species, such as the ~11,500 vertebrates analyzed for projections to 2050 and 2070.[309] These models typically assume limited dispersal or equilibrium conditions, projecting median losses of climatically suitable habitat from 30% under low-emission RCP 2.6 to 65% under RCP 8.5, with tropical and range-restricted species facing steeper declines.[309] Scenario frameworks, including shared socioeconomic pathways (SSPs) integrated in assessments like those from IPBES, extend projections to ecosystem services and intactness metrics, estimating terrestrial biodiversity declines of 0.22–5.1% per decade through 2050 depending on pathways.[141] Under fossil-fueled development (high emissions, intermediate land use), declines accelerate due to compounded climate and habitat effects, while global sustainability scenarios (low change) yield slower losses or regional recoveries via rewilding.[141] Provisioning services like timber may rise ~10% per decade across scenarios, but regulating services such as pollination erode, highlighting trade-offs.[141] Observed 20th-century global biodiversity loss aligns with 2–11% under modeled drivers, validating baseline fits but underscoring forward extrapolation challenges.[141] Uncertainties dominate projections, with SDM selection driving over 10-fold variation in habitat change estimates compared to GCMs or RCPs, amplified by dispersal assumptions and species traits like range size.[309] Structural gaps, including neglect of genetic diversity, demographic stochastics, and biotic interactions, may underestimate adaptive resilience or extinction lags, as genetic erosion often precedes observable declines without triggering model thresholds.[147] Empirical discrepancies further complicate reliability: while models forecast elevated extinction risks (e.g., millions threatened), documented rates remain low—fewer than 1,000 verified since 1500, with recent analyses showing slowing trends across plants and animals linked to conservation rather than overprediction alone.[310] Data deficiencies in invertebrates, microbes, and under-sampled regions exacerbate ranges, as do non-stationary driver-response relationships under unprecedented anthropogenic pressures.[309] Efforts to quantify and mitigate uncertainty advocate ensembles, trait-based refinements, and fusion with remote sensing or genetic essential variables, though institutional projections from bodies like IUCN and IPBES often emphasize worst-case outcomes amid these variances, potentially sidelining optimistic pathways from human innovation.[311][147]Technological Mitigations
Technological interventions offer potential avenues to counteract biodiversity decline by enhancing monitoring, genetic resilience, and resource efficiency, though their efficacy depends on empirical validation and ecological integration. Genome editing tools like CRISPR-Cas9 enable targeted modifications to improve species adaptability, such as conferring disease resistance in endangered populations or bolstering plant defenses against pests and climate stressors. For instance, CRISPR has been applied to edit genes in black-footed ferrets for plague immunity, aiming to stabilize captive breeding programs without altering wild genetics broadly. In coral systems, editing has identified genes essential for skeleton formation, potentially aiding reef restoration amid bleaching events. Similarly, for plants, genome editing can mitigate vulnerabilities from novel pathogens, providing alternatives to chemical interventions that harm non-target species.[312][313][314][315] Artificial intelligence combined with remote sensing facilitates large-scale biodiversity surveillance, enabling early detection of habitat degradation and population shifts. Satellite imagery processed via AI algorithms quantifies habitat types and tracks species distributions across vast areas, as demonstrated in projects integrating multispectral data to monitor deforestation and ecosystem health. Acoustic and camera trap data augmented by machine learning identify species presence with high accuracy, supporting adaptive management in protected areas. These tools reduce reliance on labor-intensive field surveys, allowing for real-time interventions, such as in Project Guacamaya, which fuses satellite, wildlife, and sound data to assess threats in tropical forests. However, AI models require robust training datasets to avoid biases that could misrepresent decline rates.[316][317][318] Precision agriculture technologies minimize agricultural expansion into natural habitats by optimizing inputs and yields on existing cropland. Variable-rate application of fertilizers and pesticides, guided by soil sensors and GPS, cuts excess usage by 20-30%, curbing runoff that pollutes waterways and harms aquatic biodiversity. Yield mapping integrated with ecological data identifies marginal lands for set-asides, preserving habitats while maintaining productivity; for example, frameworks prioritize retiring erosion-prone fields to enhance soil health and wildlife corridors. Genetically modified crops with traits like herbicide tolerance further reduce tillage, preserving soil microbes and invertebrate communities essential to food webs. These approaches could peak global cropland demand, averting conversion of 1 billion hectares of potential habitat by 2050 under intensified adoption.[319][320][321] Synthetic biology extends to ecosystem engineering, deploying modified organisms for restoration, such as microbes designed to degrade pollutants or stabilize sediments in degraded wetlands. Engineered plant-microbe consortia could enhance carbon sequestration and resist invasive species, accelerating recovery in disturbed sites. De-extinction efforts, like creating cold-adapted elephant proxies with woolly mammoth traits via CRISPR, aim to revive grassland ecosystems by restoring keystone herbivores that promote biodiversity through trampling and grazing; proponents argue this could counteract permafrost thaw and shrub encroachment in tundra. Yet, such proxies risk genetic bottlenecks and ecological mismatches, with critics noting potential diversion of resources from extant species conservation and uncertain net gains for overall diversity. Field trials remain limited, underscoring the need for contained testing to assess unintended trophic effects.[322][323][324][325][326]Human Development Trade-offs
Human development activities, such as agricultural expansion, urbanization, and infrastructure construction, frequently entail converting natural habitats into managed landscapes, resulting in direct biodiversity losses through habitat destruction and fragmentation. Agricultural expansion alone accounted for nearly 90% of global deforestation between 2001 and 2015, with croplands responsible for 49.6% and livestock grazing for 38.5% of that loss, primarily in tropical regions where biodiversity hotspots are concentrated.[327] [328] From 2000 to 2020, global forest cover declined by approximately 100 million hectares, much of it attributable to agricultural conversion, exacerbating species declines in affected ecosystems.[329] Urbanization compounds these pressures by replacing diverse habitats with impervious surfaces, contributing to habitat loss for 26% to 39% of assessed terrestrial vertebrate species globally, based on projections of urban expansion through 2030.[330] In urbanizing areas, native species richness often drops sharply, with local extinction rates elevated due to altered microclimates, pollution, and reduced connectivity, though some resilient or invasive species may proliferate. Infrastructure projects like roads and dams further fragment remaining habitats, impairing ecosystem functions and reducing biodiversity by 13% to 75% within fragments through edge effects and barrier creation.[331] For instance, road networks increase wildlife mortality via vehicle collisions and restrict gene flow, while dams inundate riparian zones critical for aquatic and terrestrial species.[332] These trade-offs are particularly acute in developing economies, where prioritizing biodiversity conservation can constrain poverty alleviation and food security, as subsistence farming and resource extraction provide essential livelihoods amid rapid population growth. Empirical analyses indicate that economic growth correlates with accelerated biodiversity loss via heightened resource demands, with limited evidence of an environmental Kuznets curve reversal—unlike for air pollutants—suggesting that wealth accumulation does not reliably yield net conservation gains without deliberate policy decoupling.[333] [334] In South and Southeast Asia, for example, rising per capita income from 2013 to 2019 coincided with persistent biodiversity declines, underscoring ongoing conflicts between development imperatives and habitat preservation.[334] While intensified agriculture or urban planning can mitigate some expansionary pressures through yield improvements, such measures often fail to fully offset losses, and strict land-use restrictions may exacerbate human-wildlife conflicts or illegal activities in under-resourced regions.[335] Ultimately, resolving these tensions requires balancing immediate human needs with long-term ecological viability, though global patterns reveal development's causal primacy in habitat conversion.References
- https://www.coastalwiki.org/wiki/Number_of_marine_species