Nav: Home

Global levels of biodiversity could be lower than we think, new study warns

December 02, 2019

Biodiversity across the globe could be in a worse state than previously thought as current biodiversity assessments fail to take into account the long-lasting impact of abrupt land changes, a new study has warned.

The study by PhD graduate Dr Martin Jung, Senior Lecturer in Geography Dr Pedram Rowhani and Professor of Conservation Science Jörn Scharlemann, all at the University of Sussex, shows that fewer species and fewer individuals are observed at sites that have been disturbed by an abrupt land change in past decades.

The authors warn that areas subjected to deforestation or intensification of agriculture can take at least ten years to recover, with reductions in species richness and abundance.

With current biodiversity assessments failing to take into account the impacts of past land changes, the researchers believe that the natural world could be in a far worse state than currently thought.

Lead author, Dr Martin Jung said: "These findings show that recent abrupt land changes, like deforestation or intensification through agriculture, can cause even more impactful and long-lasting damage to biodiversity than previously thought.

"Our study shows that it can take at least ten or more years for areas which have undergone recent abrupt land changes to recover to levels comparable to undisturbed sites. This only strengthens the argument to limit the impacts of land change on biodiversity with immediate haste."

The study combined global data on biodiversity from the PREDICTS database, one of the largest databases of terrestrial plants, fungi and animals across the world, with quantitative estimates of abrupt land change detected using images from NASA's Landsat satellites from 1982 to 2015.

Comparing numbers of plants, fungi and animals at 5,563 disturbed sites with those at 10,102 undisturbed sites across the world from Africa to Asia, the researchers found that biodiversity remains affected by a land change event for several years after it has occurred, due to a lag effect.

Species richness and abundance were found to be 4.2% and 2% lower, respectively, at sites where an abrupt land change had occurred.

In addition, the impacts on species were found to be greater if land changes had occurred more recently, and caused greater changes in vegetation cover. At sites that had land changes in the last five years, there were around 6.6% fewer species observed.

However, at sites where a land change had taken place 10 or more years ago, species richness and abundance were indistinguishable from sites without a past land change in the same period, indicating that biodiversity can recover after such disturbances.

Dr Jung explained: "For us, the results clearly indicate that regional and global biodiversity assessments need to consider looking back at the past in order to have more accurate results in the present.

"We've shown that remotely-sensed satellite data can assist in doing this in a robust way globally. Our framework can also be applied to habitat restoration and conservation prioritization assessments."

Prof Jörn Scharlemann added: "Although the number of species and individuals appear to recover more than 10 years after a land change, we will still need to find out whether the original unique species recover or whether common widespread species, such as weeds, pigeons and rats, move into these disturbed areas."
-end-


University of Sussex

Related Biodiversity Articles:

Biodiversity and wind energy
The location and operation of wind energy plants are often in direct conflict with the legal protection of endangered species.
Mapping global biodiversity change
A new study, published in Science, which focuses on mapping biodiversity change in marine and land ecosystems shows that loss of biodiversity is most prevalent in the tropic, with changes in marine ecosystems outpacing those on land.
What if we paid countries to protect biodiversity?
Researchers from Sweden, Germany, Brazil and the USA have developed a financial mechanism to support the protection of the world's natural heritage.
Grassland biodiversity is blowing in the wind
Temperate grasslands are the most endangered but least protected ecosystems on Earth.
The loss of biodiversity comes at a price
A University of Cordoba research team ran the numbers on the impact of forest fires on emblematic species using the fires in Spain's Doñana National Park and Segura mountains in 2017 as examples
Biodiversity and carbon: perfect together
Biodiversity conservation is often considered to be a co-benefit of protecting carbon sinks such as intact forests to help mitigate climate change.
The last chance for Madagascar's biodiversity
A group of scientists from Madagascar, UK, Australia, USA and Finland have recommended actions the government of Madagascar's recently elected president, Andry Rajoelina should take to turn around the precipitous decline of biodiversity and help put Madagascar on a trajectory towards sustainable growth.
Biodiversity draws the ecotourism crowd
Nature -- if you support it, ecotourists will come. Managed wisely, both can win.
Biodiversity for the birds
Can't a bird get some biodiversity around here? The landscaping choices homeowners make can lead to reduced bird populations, thanks to the elimination of native plants and the accidental creation of food deserts.
Biodiversity can also destabilize ecosystems
According to the prevailing opinion, species-rich ecosystems are more stable against environmental disruptions such as drought, hot spells or pesticides.
More Biodiversity News and Biodiversity Current Events

Top Science Podcasts

We have hand picked the top science podcasts of 2019.
Now Playing: TED Radio Hour

In & Out Of Love
We think of love as a mysterious, unknowable force. Something that happens to us. But what if we could control it? This hour, TED speakers on whether we can decide to fall in — and out of — love. Guests include writer Mandy Len Catron, biological anthropologist Helen Fisher, musician Dessa, One Love CEO Katie Hood, and psychologist Guy Winch.
Now Playing: Science for the People

#542 Climate Doomsday
Have you heard? Climate change. We did it. And it's bad. It's going to be worse. We are already suffering the effects of it in many ways. How should we TALK about the dangers we are facing, though? Should we get people good and scared? Or give them hope? Or both? Host Bethany Brookshire talks with David Wallace-Wells and Sheril Kirschenbaum to find out. This episode is hosted by Bethany Brookshire, science writer from Science News. Related links: Why Climate Disasters Might Not Boost Public Engagement on Climate Change on The New York Times by Andrew Revkin The other kind...
Now Playing: Radiolab

An Announcement from Radiolab