TL;DR
Get school and study supplies delivered free — and shop member deals
- Fast, free delivery on millions of items
- Access to Prime Big Deal Days deals on October 6–7
- Prime Video, Amazon Music and more included
A study combining 423 published studies and 222,829 data points finds that most of 23 measured ecosystem services and functions continue to increase with biodiversity rather than leveling off. The researchers say this challenges the assumption that species can often substitute for those lost; they caution that the especially strong result for ocean carbon storage relies on limited data.
A global study led by King’s College London and Imperial College London finds that most of the ecosystem benefits it assessed rise with biodiversity rather than leveling off, challenging the idea that remaining species can readily replace those lost. Published in Nature Ecology & Evolution, the analysis raises concerns about the resilience of services people rely on, including pollination, water purification and carbon storage.
The research team combined 423 published studies and 222,829 data points covering land, freshwater, marine and estuarine ecosystems. The resulting database is more than twice the size of the largest previous effort, according to the report. Researchers assessed 23 categories of ecosystem services and functions, examining how their measured benefits relate to biodiversity.
Across most categories, benefits continued to rise as biodiversity increased instead of reaching a plateau after only a few species were present. The researchers interpret this pattern as evidence that functional redundancy—the idea that species can perform interchangeable roles, cushioning the effect of losses—has been overestimated. The findings describe broad relationships across the data; they do not establish that every species loss has the same effect in every ecosystem.
Ocean carbon sequestration showed the strongest positive relationship with biodiversity among the services measured. The process captures and stores carbon dioxide in marine waters and sediments. However, the authors said this result is based on a small number of data sets and identified marine carbon storage as a gap requiring further research.
Biodiversity and the Services People Rely On
The results matter because ecosystems contribute to food production, clean water and climate regulation, among other benefits. If those benefits usually keep increasing with biodiversity, then losing species may reduce ecosystem functions even where some species remain. The study challenges the assumption that a system can lose several species without meaningful consequences because others will take over their roles.
The ocean result adds a possible climate implication, but it needs careful interpretation. The analysis found a particularly strong biodiversity relationship for marine carbon storage; it did not establish how much carbon storage would be lost in a particular place after a specified number of species disappear. The authors’ warning is that relying on ocean and coastal ecosystems as carbon sinks requires attention to the diversity of marine life, while the limited evidence means the size and generality of that relationship remain uncertain.
The study also points to potential consequences for agriculture. Its model forecasts a decline in natural pest control on farmland under a fossil-fuel-driven development pathway compared with a pathway involving less fossil fuel. The researchers report the sharpest projected losses in countries with rapid population growth and lower development levels. These are scenario-based forecasts, not observations of future outcomes.
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
What the Global Analysis Measured
The research was conducted by teams from King’s College London, Imperial College London, the Natural History Museum and The Alan Turing Institute. Its scale allowed the authors to compare biodiversity relationships across multiple types of ecosystem and a wide range of services and functions. The full database and model forecasts for all 23 categories have been made publicly available, the report says.
The findings are not that every ecosystem service responds identically. Protection from coastal hazards, including flooding and erosion, was relatively insensitive to overall biodiversity in the analysis. The researchers say this may be because such protection can depend heavily on one or two foundational species, such as shrubs that stabilize sand dunes. They argue that conservation planning needs to protect overall diversity while also safeguarding species with especially important roles.
In addition to analyzing existing studies, the team linked its database to biodiversity projections under socioeconomic scenarios used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. This let researchers model how services such as biological pest control might change under different development pathways. Those projections depend on the assumptions built into the scenarios and model.
“Our findings challenge the comfortable assumption that ecosystems carry plenty of backup, so losing a species here and there doesn’t change much.”
— Dr. Emma Moffett, study lead and lecturer in geography at King’s College London
marine carbon sequestration equipment
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
Where Evidence Remains Limited
The analysis identifies broad patterns across published research, but it does not show that biodiversity has the same effect on every service in every location. Local conditions and species’ roles vary, and the coastal hazard result illustrates that some functions may depend more on particular foundational species than on diversity overall.
The strongest result, for ocean carbon sequestration, rests on a small number of data sets, according to the authors. The study therefore does not settle how strongly biodiversity affects carbon storage across different marine ecosystems, or how that relationship changes as species are lost. More research is needed before the result can be translated into precise local estimates.
The report does not provide a single estimate of how much food production, water purification or carbon storage would decline from a given amount of biodiversity loss. Nor does it specify the timing or scale of future changes in pest control. Those projections depend on socioeconomic pathways and model assumptions; they should not be read as confirmed future outcomes.
water purification systems for home
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
Data for Conservation and Planning
The research team has made its database and forecasts public, giving policymakers and planners material to examine across the 23 ecosystem-service and function categories. Further research, particularly on marine carbon sequestration, could test whether the strongest reported relationship holds across more ocean and coastal data sets.
The study’s findings also frame a practical planning challenge: decisions may need to account for both overall biodiversity and irreplaceable species that underpin particular functions, such as coastal protection. The authors’ scenario modeling offers a basis for comparing potential pathways, but the report does not announce a policy change or a specific follow-up study. How governments and conservation bodies use the available forecasts remains to be seen.
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
Key Questions
What did the study find about species losses?
Across most of 23 ecosystem services and functions studied, measured benefits increased with biodiversity rather than leveling off. The researchers say this challenges the assumption that remaining species can routinely replace those lost.
Which ecosystem benefit had the strongest link to biodiversity?
Ocean carbon sequestration showed the strongest positive response to biodiversity in the analysis. The authors caution that this finding rests on a small number of data sets.
Did every ecosystem service depend on biodiversity in the same way?
No. Coastal protection from flooding and erosion was relatively insensitive to biodiversity overall in the analysis, which the authors say may reflect reliance on particular foundational species.
What does the study predict for natural pest control?
The researchers’ model projects declining biological pest control on farmland under a fossil-fuel-driven development pathway compared with a pathway involving less fossil fuel. This is a scenario-based forecast, not a confirmed future outcome.
Can the findings predict the effect of losing a specific species?
Not from the reported results alone. The study identifies broad relationships across many data sets, but local effects depend on ecosystem conditions and species’ roles. It does not give a universal estimate for the impact of losing any particular species.
Source: hn
Fall Picks
fall essentials
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
