98
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found

      Has land use pushed terrestrial biodiversity beyond the planetary boundary? A global assessment.

      Read this article at

          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Land use and related pressures have reduced local terrestrial biodiversity, but it is unclear how the magnitude of change relates to the recently proposed planetary boundary ("safe limit"). We estimate that land use and related pressures have already reduced local biodiversity intactness--the average proportion of natural biodiversity remaining in local ecosystems--beyond its recently proposed planetary boundary across 58.1% of the world's land surface, where 71.4% of the human population live. Biodiversity intactness within most biomes (especially grassland biomes), most biodiversity hotspots, and even some wilderness areas is inferred to be beyond the boundary. Such widespread transgression of safe limits suggests that biodiversity loss, if unchecked, will undermine efforts toward long-term sustainable development.

          Related collections

          Most cited references358

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Vive la différence: plant functional diversity matters to ecosystem processes

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Primary forests are irreplaceable for sustaining tropical biodiversity.

            Human-driven land-use changes increasingly threaten biodiversity, particularly in tropical forests where both species diversity and human pressures on natural environments are high. The rapid conversion of tropical forests for agriculture, timber production and other uses has generated vast, human-dominated landscapes with potentially dire consequences for tropical biodiversity. Today, few truly undisturbed tropical forests exist, whereas those degraded by repeated logging and fires, as well as secondary and plantation forests, are rapidly expanding. Here we provide a global assessment of the impact of disturbance and land conversion on biodiversity in tropical forests using a meta-analysis of 138 studies. We analysed 2,220 pairwise comparisons of biodiversity values in primary forests (with little or no human disturbance) and disturbed forests. We found that biodiversity values were substantially lower in degraded forests, but that this varied considerably by geographic region, taxonomic group, ecological metric and disturbance type. Even after partly accounting for confounding colonization and succession effects due to the composition of surrounding habitats, isolation and time since disturbance, we find that most forms of forest degradation have an overwhelmingly detrimental effect on tropical biodiversity. Our results clearly indicate that when it comes to maintaining tropical biodiversity, there is no substitute for primary forests.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Reconciling food production and biodiversity conservation: land sharing and land sparing compared.

              The question of how to meet rising food demand at the least cost to biodiversity requires the evaluation of two contrasting alternatives: land sharing, which integrates both objectives on the same land; and land sparing, in which high-yield farming is combined with protecting natural habitats from conversion to agriculture. To test these alternatives, we compared crop yields and densities of bird and tree species across gradients of agricultural intensity in southwest Ghana and northern India. More species were negatively affected by agriculture than benefited from it, particularly among species with small global ranges. For both taxa in both countries, land sparing is a more promising strategy for minimizing negative impacts of food production, at both current and anticipated future levels of production.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Science
                Science (New York, N.Y.)
                American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)
                1095-9203
                0036-8075
                Jul 15 2016
                : 353
                : 6296
                Affiliations
                [1 ] United Nations Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre, 219 Huntingdon Road, Cambridge CB3 0DL, UK. Centre for Biodiversity and Environment Research, Department of Genetics, Evolution and Environment, University College London, Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT, UK. t.newbold@ucl.ac.uk.
                [2 ] Department of Life Sciences, Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, UK.
                [3 ] United Nations Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre, 219 Huntingdon Road, Cambridge CB3 0DL, UK.
                [4 ] Department of Life Sciences, Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, UK. Department of Life Sciences, Imperial College London, Silwood Park, London SL5 7PY, UK.
                [5 ] Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) Land and Water Flagship, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory 2601, Australia.
                [6 ] United Nations Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre, 219 Huntingdon Road, Cambridge CB3 0DL, UK. Department of Life Sciences, Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, UK.
                [7 ] Department of Life Sciences, Imperial College London, Silwood Park, London SL5 7PY, UK.
                [8 ] United Nations Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre, 219 Huntingdon Road, Cambridge CB3 0DL, UK. Luc Hoffmann Institute, World Wildlife Fund (WWF) International, 1196 Gland, Switzerland.
                [9 ] Center for Macroecology, Evolution and Climate, Natural History Museum of Denmark, University of Copenhagen, Universitetsparken 15, DK-2100 Copenhagen Ø, Denmark. School of Life Sciences, University of Sussex, Brighton BN1 9QG, UK.
                [10 ] Centre for Biodiversity and Environment Research, Department of Genetics, Evolution and Environment, University College London, Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT, UK.
                [11 ] United Nations Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre, 219 Huntingdon Road, Cambridge CB3 0DL, UK. School of Life Sciences, University of Sussex, Brighton BN1 9QG, UK.
                Article
                353/6296/288
                10.1126/science.aaf2201
                27418509
                9c17b92a-040e-4743-bcbc-97b3ca30d7dd
                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article