Start Submission

Reading: Biotic impoverishment

Download

A- A+
Alt. Display

Commentary

Biotic impoverishment

Author:

Shahid Naeem

Department of Ecology, Evolution and Environmental Biology and Earth Institute Center for Environmental Sustainability, Columbia University in the City of New York, New York, United States, US
X close
Knowledge Domain: Ecology
How to Cite: Naeem, S., 2013. Biotic impoverishment. Elem Sci Anth, 1, p.000015. DOI: http://doi.org/10.12952/journal.elementa.000015
13044
Views
7701
Downloads
3
Citations
Altmetric
 Published on 04 Dec 2013
 Accepted on 30 Oct 2013            Submitted on 01 Jul 2013
Domain Editor-in-Chief: Donald R. Zak; School of Natural Resources & Environment, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, United States


Predicting how biotic impoverishment impacts ecosystem processes requires a multidimensional approach

A central goal of ecologists today is to be able to predict the environmental consequences of humanity’s alteration of life on Earth. We have changed our world so much that many propose considering the Holocene officially over and naming this new epoch in Earth’s history the Anthropocene (Crutzen, 2002; Zalasiewcz et al., 2008). Several features distinguish the Anthropocene from the Holocene, but changes in the diversity of life are among the most prevalent. These include:

The biosphere has clearly undergone, and is undergoing, an unprecedented biotic change. From a Holocene world made up of about 10 million species (Mora et al., 2011), we are moving to an Anthropocene world dominated by one species (our own), 35 species of livestock, and 30 crop species (FAO, 2013). The remaining terrestrial species live on land of substantially lower productivity than the land we have appropriated (Haberl et al., 2004). Marine species are even worse off. Our oceans are polluted, acidifying, and shifting in trophic composition as top predator species are overfished (Jackson, 2008). The Anthropocene is a novel biological realm.

One way to approach the problem of understanding the significance of biotic change is to compare characteristics of two or more replicates of unit spaces which contain different biota. To illustrate, let us first consider the biosphere of the Holocene versus that of the Anthropocene. In virtually any space on Earth’s surface whose physical and chemical conditions are conducive to life, microbes and most likely plants and animals will be found. Their presence alters the fluxes of energy, elements and materials through this space. We need to figure out what the average amount of biomass is per unit space which means we need to estimate the total global biomass and divide that by an estimate of the total volume of habitable space on Earth.

We can estimate the total volume of habitable space, or the volume of the biosphere, by considering the extremes of where life is found. A snail fish, for example, has been found on the ocean floor at a depth of nearly 8 km (Jamieson et al., 2009), well below the average ocean depth of 3.68 km (Charette and Smith, 2010). The estimated ocean volume, which is based on the product of the surface area of the ocean and the average depth, is 1.33 billion cubic kilometers (1.4 x 109 km3, Charette and Smith, 2010). A vulture was found flying 11 km above sea level (Laybourne, 1974), so we can estimate the volume of habitable space over land by multiplying the total area of land (i.e., 150 x 106 km2) by 11 km, which yields 1.65 x 109 km3. Add these estimates for the volume of habitable ocean and the volume of habitable space above land and the volume of the biosphere appears to be about 3 billion cubic kilometers (or 3.0 x 109 km3).

The estimated total mass of life occupying this space, using carbon content as our measure, is enormous — approximately one trillion tons or 1.0 x 1012 t C (Whitman, Coleman and Wiebe, 1998).

Returning to our original problem of estimating the average amount of biomass is per unit space, we get Global biomass C / volume of habitable space on Earth ( (1.0 x 1012 t C)/(3.0 x 109 km3) = (1.0 x 1021 mg C)/(3.0 x 1021 l) = 0.33 mg C l-1.

Given this enormous mass of biomass, it is not surprising that gigatons (i.e., billions of tons) of biologically important elements such as carbon, nitrogen, phosphorus, and sulfur move annually between land, ocean, and atmosphere. These biologically-driven geochemical, or biogeochemical processes, are what make Earth habitable (Schlesinger and Bernhardt, 2012). What is surprising, however, is that if a liter of the biosphere, on average, contains just 0.33 mg of biomass (again, in terms of C) per liter. So while a trillion tons of biomass sounds like a lot, on a per-unit space, the biosphere is rather thinly diffused with life. Thin though it is, it is dense enough to transform Earth from a lifeless planet to a vibrant, dynamic, and productive home for ourselves and millions of other species.

We can now compare the average properties of a unit space of the Anthropocene biosphere with the Holocene biosphere. The question we would ask is whether a spatial unit of the Holocene biosphere changes in its biogeochemical functioning if its biota changes. If the average biomass content of the unit (i.e., 0.33 mg per liter) declined, we might guess that the magnitude, rate, and stability of its biogeochemical functioning would all decline. The question that is more germane, but much more difficult to address, is if the biomass content of the unit remained constant at 0.33 mg C per liter, but the average biodiversity in a liter declined, do the magnitudes, rates, and stability increase, decrease, or remain unchanged?

The idea of an ecological unit is admittedly abstract, but it illustrates the primary objective of research focused on the environmental consequences of biotic impoverishment. Unlike the term biodiversity loss, which usually refers to the local or global extinction of species, biotic impoverishment refers to any decline in biodiversity per unit of ecological space. While extinction certainly makes biotic impoverishment worse, even if no species went extinct, biotic impoverishment could still occur. For example, if the unit of ecological space experienced a decline in

  • taxonomic diversity,
  • phylogenetic diversity,
  • functional diversity,
  • genetic diversity,
  • genomic diversity,
  • trophic diversity,
  • interaction diversity,
  • spatial or temporal diversity (e.g., a change in composition over space or time),
or any other dimension of biodiversity (see Common dimensions of biodiversity, below, for descriptions of these dimensions of biodiversity), but the number of species remained constant, biotic impoverishment would still occur (Naeem, Duffy and Zavaleta, 2012).

In the abstract exercise above, the spatial unit (i.e., 1 liter) was for the entire biosphere. More practically, given Earth’s heterogeneity that ranges from icy poles and tropical forests to dark oceanic abysses and coral reefs, we would work at smaller scales and then scale up. We would work at the scale of the biome, landscape, ecosystem, or, experimentally, at the level of a field plot or laboratory mesocosm or microcosm.

The study of biodiversity and ecosystem functioning (BEF) explores the environmental consequences of biotic impoverishment in the Anthropocene by comparing spatial units of the biosphere that vary in biodiversity. The central idea is to consider how biodiversity per unit ecological space functions under Holocene levels of diversity, which are presumed to be very high, compare with Anthropocene levels, which are presumed to be very low. For example, the first BEF study, conducted in 1992, built fourteen replicate spatial units of an old-field ecosystem in growth chambers that had identical light regimes, nutrient abundance, water inputs, air flow, and soil volume (Naeem et al. 1994). However, the number of species and interactions were deliberately varied between high (e.g., Holocene), intermediate (e.g., Anthropcene), and low (e.g., future) levels of biodiversity. The study found that simultaneously changing taxonomic and interaction diversity significantly affected carbon dioxide flux, nutrient flux, and other biogeochemical processes, even though the initial conditions of the units were all the same. Biodiversity was simply indexed as high, intermediate, and low and ecosystem functions were considered to be processes that concerned energy and material flow through the 8 m3 ecological space (i.e., the growth chamber). Prevailing hypotheses at the time ranged from biotic impoverishment having no effect to having dramatic effects on ecosystem functions. This first study suggested that it was the latter — almost all ecosystem functions in the high diversity replicates (i.e., the Holocene replicates) were significantly different from the intermediate and low diversity replicates (e.g., the Anthropocene replicates). This single mesocosm study, however, was insufficient to shed much light on the question and perhaps generated more discussion than convinced any one that the Anthropocene was going to be significantly different from the Holocene in the face of biotic impoverishment.

Why did changing biodiversity in a unit ecological space lead to higher levels of ecosystem functioning in this experiment? The study argued that greater biodiversity enhanced magnitudes of functioning because more diversity meant greater likelihood that species would collectively make more efficient use of energy and resources available in the unit space than single species could do alone. The classic example is that neither shallow- nor deep-rooted plant species make efficient use of soil compared to both working together. Meta-analyses of BEF experiments support this mechanism for many studies, but not all (Cardinale et al., 2006).

Now, some 20 years and over a thousand studies later, the impacts of biotic impoverishment on ecosystem functioning are relatively clear (Cardinale et al., 2012; Naeem, Duffy and Zavaleta, 2012). BEF studies have ranged from laboratory microcosms of bacteria to replicated field plots of vegetation to observational studies of nature in situ. Though impacts of biotic impoverishment in these studies varied from nil to significant depending on the ecosystem, the ecosystem functions measured, and the nature of the changes in biodiversity, biotic impoverishment can clearly alter the magnitude, efficiency, and stability of multiple functions (e.g., primary production, nutrient cycling, carbon flux, invasion resistance, resistance to the spread of diseases, and pollination efficiency). Variation in how researchers define and measure ecosystem functions makes comparing studies difficult. For example, many researchers consider plant or primary production an ecosystem function and quantify it as above ground biomass while others measure both above- and belowground biomass. Other studies are more specific, focusing on single steps in a nutrient cycle, such as N mineralization, while other studies measure abstract properties of an ecosystem, such as the ability to resist invasion by exotic species or by disease organisms. In general, in spite of the rich variety of definitions and methods of quantification of ecosystem functions, the overall consensus is that most ecosystem functions examined, singly or collectively, have proven to be sensitive to changes in one or more dimensions of biodiversity (Cardinale et al., 2012).

While no study has attempted to scale up BEF findings to the biosphere, the body of literature is robust enough for the scientific community to extrapolate to large scales and suggest basic principles and likely impacts on human wellbeing in the Anthropocene (Cardinale et al., 2012). Experimental studies have ranged from manipulating bacterial diversity in micro-well plates using robotic pipettors (Wittebolle et al., 2009) to hand planting mixtures of grassland plants across hundreds of field plots (e.g., Isbell et al., 2011). Observational studies have examined long-term trends in the grasslands of Inner Mongolia (Bai et al., 2004) to salmon populations in Bristol Bay, Alaska (Schindler et al., 2010). Collectively, these studies of biotic impoverishment suggest that the Anthropocene biosphere could be less biogeochemically active, lower in efficiency (lower biogeochemical functioning per unit energy and nutrients consumed), and less stable (Fig. 1). That sounds scary, given that 7 billion people count on the biosphere to provide them with food, water, and a safe planetary abode (Rockstrom et al., 2009), but now are facing an impoverished, shaky, unpredictable world. It remains both an interesting and also incredibly important question whether we can predict how biotic impoverishment is likely to change our biosphere.

doi: 10.12952/journal.elementa.000015.f001.
Figure 1  

Biotic impoverishment in the Anthropocene.

In this figure, for simplicity, only three dimensions of biodiversity are illustrated. The three dimensions are; (1) phylogenetic diversity, shown to range from phylogenies whose sum of all branch length is large to those whose sums are small; (2) taxonomic diversity illustrated as six equally abundant species (six bars of equal height) to low diversity in which some species dominate while others are rare; and (3) functional diversity illustrated as a unidimensional niche axis in which species (cross hatches) are evenly distributed and represent considerable complementarity, or close to one another, representing low complementarity among several species. The Anthropocene biosphere is shown to be close to the origin where all dimensions of biodiversity are low while the Holocene biosphere is shown to be in the opposite corner, where all dimensions of biodiversity are high. The variance in dimensions of biodiversity, illustrated as the gray cloud surrounding a dense core, is smaller in the Anthropocene because its communities and ecosystems will vary less than those of the Holocene. In the Anthropocene, almost half of terrestrial ecosystems are under agricultural management, the majority of freshwater systems are impounded and directed to serve human needs, and in marine systems coral reefs have shrunk and most fished species have declined dramatically. Note that there are many different metrics for each dimension of biodiversity (Magurran and McGill, 2011), but I have selected the more simple metrics. Phylogenetic diversity, for example, is shown as the sum of the branch lengths, but mean phylogenetic distance, sum of phylogenetic distances, and nearest-neighbor distances are becoming more common metrics (Vellend et al., 2011). In the domesticated nature of the Anthropocene (sensu Kareiva et al., 2007), the world is less varied and more homogeneous, shown here as a smaller cloud. Biotic impoverishment studies ask how these two worlds, or ecosystems within them, compare in their magnitudes, rates, and stability of biogeochemical functioning, such as primary production, decomposition, energy flux, and nutrient cycling.

There are a number of exciting frontiers in the field of biodiversity and ecosystem functioning, but none are as challenging as considering the multiple dimensions of biodiversity. While most studies have focused on taxonomic diversity (Zavaleta et al., 2010; Morin et al., 2011; Paquette and Messier, 2011), other dimensions have increasingly come under investigation, including genetic (e.g., Hughes et al., 2008; Eisenhauer, Scheu and Jousset, 2012), functional diversity (e.g., McLaren and Turkington, 2011; Sekercioglu, 2012), interaction diversity (e.g., Connolly et al., 2011), and phylogenetic diversity (e.g., Cadotte, 2013), but few have explored multiple dimensions. Those that have, such as Flynn et al. (2011) and Cadotte, Cardinale and Oakley (2008), have provided greater insights into the mechanisms responsible for the influence of biodiversity on unit ecosystem functioning. The challenge is how to either conduct an experimental study or statistically analyze observational data to reveal how taxonomic, phylogenetic, genetic, genomic, functional, trophic, interaction, and perhaps other dimensions, such as spatial and temporal dimensions of biodiversity, simultaneously influence ecosystem functioning. There are also needs to determine what the baselines are for different dimensions of biodiversity and how different anthropogenic drivers affect each dimension. Such research borders on the completely intractable, yet it needs to be done because changes in each dimension of biodiversity affect ecosystem functioning in different ways.

This is an exciting and daunting phase in the study of biotic impoverishment. Technological advances are rapidly increasing methods for quantitatively assessing different dimensions of biodiversity. Remote sensing is developing ways to identify diversity in vegetation through hyperspectral analysis, DNA barcoding is accelerating biodiversity discovery, advances in computer and web-based technologies are allowing for the assembly, sharing, and integration of massive biodiversity databases, and theoretical and empirical studies of biotic impoverishment are growing exponentially. Most exciting are molecular advances, such as the GeoChip (e.g., He et al., 2010a; He et al., 2010b), that are allowing us to examine microbial diversity in ways that were never possible before (Zak, Blackwood and Waldrop, 2006). Such sequence- and gene-based methods, although data intensive, may also reduce the number of dimensions of biodiversity needed for a BEF study much the way phylogenetic diversity captures both taxonomic and functional diversity (Cadotte et al., 2008; Flynn et al., 2011). Important changes in the social dimension of the issue include the rise in Payment for Ecosystem Services as an economic instrument for promoting sustainable use of biodiversity and the services it provides (Farley and Costanza, 2010), the establishment of twenty Convention on Biological Diversity Targets to be achieved by 2020 (Perrings et al., 2010), and the establishment of the Intergovernmental Platform for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (Larigauderie and Mooney, 2010). Such activity on both social and natural science fronts is encouraging, but progress will be contingent on our arriving at a better understanding of just what exactly an ecosystem’s biological diversity is, in all its dimensions before we start to predict the consequences of its impoverishment. Maybe the biotically impoverished Anthropocene is a better place for humanity, maybe it is a worse place and needs to be managed differently — either way, modern research will help shed light on the issue.

Common dimensions of biodiversity

Most studies of biodiversity and ecosystem functioning focus on taxonomic diversity, though increasingly functional and phylogenetic diversity are being used. Other dimensions of diversity, such as trophic diversity and genetic diversity, are rarely examined.

  • Taxonomic diversity — the number and relative abundance of taxa (e.g., species, genera, families, and onward)
  • Phylogenetic diversity — relationships among taxa based on times since divergence (e.g., sum of the branch lengths linking species in a phylogeny)
  • Genetic diversity — nucleotide, allelic, chromosomal, genotypic, or other aspects of genomic variability
  • Genomic diversity — similar to genetic diversity but focused on sequence similarity or sequence variability of genomic elements such as single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), large-sequence polymorphisms (LSPs), or repetitive elements such as microsatellites, telomeres, and mobile elements
  • Functional diversity — variation in the degree of expression of multiple functional traits
  • Spatial or temporal diversity — rates of turnover of species through space or time
  • Interaction diversity — characteristics of the network of interactions, such as competition, predation, parasitism, or facilitation, among species
  • Trophic diversity — similar to interaction diversity but limited to trophic or feeding interactions such as predation, herbivory, and parasitism.

Copyright

© 2013 Naeem. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

References

  1. Bai Y, Han X, Wu J, Chen Z, Li L. 2004. Ecosystem stability and compensatory effects in the Inner Mongolia grassland. Nature 431: 181–184.

  2. Barnosky AD, Koch PL, Feranec RS, Wing SL, Shabel AB. 2004. Assessing the Causes of Late Pleistocene Extinctions on the Continents. Science 306: 70–75.

  3. Barnosky AD , Matzke N , Tomiya S , Wogan GOU , Swartz B , et al. 2011. Has the Earth/’s sixth mass extinction already arrived? Nature 471: 51–57.

  4. Cadotte MW. 2013. Experimental evidence that evolutionarily diverse assemblages result in higher productivity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences . doi: 10.1073/pnas.1301685110

  5. Cadotte MW, Cardinale BJ, Oakley TH. 2008. Evolutionary history and the effect of biodiversity on plant productivity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105: 17012–17017.

  6. Cardinale BJ , Duffy JE , Gonzalez A , Hooper DU , Perrings C , et al. 2012. Biodiversity loss and its impact on humanity. Nature 486: 59–67.

  7. Cardinale BJ , Srivastava DS , Emmett Duffy J , Wright JP , Downing AL , et al. 2006. Effects of biodiversity on the functioning of trophic groups and ecosystems. Nature 443: 989–992.

  8. Charette MA, Smith WHF. 2010. The volume of Earth’s Ocean. Oceanography 23: 112–114.

  9. Connolly J , Cadotte MW , Brophy C , Dooley Á , Finn J , et al. 2011. Phylogenetically diverse grasslands are associated with pairwise interspecific processes that increase biomass. Ecology 92: 1385–1392.

  10. Crutzen PJ. 2002. Geology of mankind. Nature 415: 23–23.

  11. Eisenhauer N, Scheu S, Jousset A. 2012. Bacterial Diversity Stabilizes Community Productivity. PLoS ONE 7: 1–5.

  12. Estes JA , Terborgh J , Brashares JS , Power ME , Berger J , et al. 2011. Trophic Downgrading of Planet Earth. Science 333: 301–306.

  13. FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). 2013. Biodiversity for a world without hunger [Internet] . Available from: http://www.fao.org/biodiversity/en/

  14. Farley J, Costanza R. 2010. Payments for ecosystem services: From local to global. Ecological Economics 69: 2060–2068.

  15. Flynn DFB, Mirotchnick N, Jain M, Palmer MI, Naeem S. 2011. Functional and phylogenetic diversity as predictors of biodiversity–ecosystem-function relationships. Ecology 92: 1573–1581.

  16. Haberl H , Schulz NB , Plutzar C , Erb KH , Krausmann F , et al. 2004. Human appropriation of net primary production and species diversity in agricultural landscapes. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 102: 213–218.

  17. He Z , Deng Y , Van Nostrand JD , Tu Q , Xu M , et al. 2010a. GeoChip 3.0 as a high-throughput tool for analyzing microbial community composition, structure and functional activity. ISME J 4: 1167–1179.

  18. He Z , Xu M , Deng Y , Kang S , Kellogg L , et al. 2010b. Metagenomic analysis reveals a marked divergence in the structure of belowground microbial communities at elevated CO2. Ecology Letters 13: 564–575.

  19. Hughes AR, Inouye BD, Johnson MTJ, Underwood N, Vellend M. 2008. Ecological consequences of genetic diversity. Ecology Letters 11: 609–623.

  20. Isbell F , Calcagno V , Hector A , Connolly J , Harpole WS , et al. 2011. High plant diversity is needed to maintain ecosystem services. Nature 477: 199–202.

  21. Jackson JBC. 2008. Ecological extinction and evolution in the brave new ocean. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105: 11458–11465.

  22. Jamieson AJ, Fujii T, Solan M, Priede IG. 2009. HADEEP: Free-Falling Landers to the Deepest Places on Earth. Marine Technology Society Journal 43: 151–160.

  23. Kareiva P, Watts S, McDonald R, Boucher T. 2007. Domesticated nature: Shaping landscapes and ecosystems for human welfare. Science 316: 1866–1869.

  24. Krausmann F , Erb K-H , Gingrich S , Haberl H , Bondeau A , et al. 2013. Global human appropriation of net primary production doubled in the 20th century. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110: 10324–10329.

  25. Larigauderie A, Mooney HA. 2010. The Intergovernmental science-policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services: Moving a step closer to an IPCC-like mechanism for biodiversity. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2: 9–14.

  26. Laybourne RC. 1974. Collision between a vulture and an aircraft at an altitude of 37,000 ft. Wilson Bulletin 86: 461–462.

  27. Magurran AE, McGill BJ, editors. 2011. Biological diversity : frontiers in measurement and assessment . New York: Oxford University Press.

  28. McLaren JR, Turkington R. 2011. Biomass compensation and plant responses to 7 years of plant functional group removals. Journal of Vegetation Science 22: 503–515.

  29. Mora C, Tittensor DP, Adl S, Simpson AGB, Worm B. . 2011. How Many Species Are There on Earth and in the Ocean? PLoS Biol 9: e1001127.

  30. Morin X, Fahse L, Scherer-Lorenzen M, Bugmann H. 2011. Tree species richness promotes productivity in temperate forests through strong complementarity between species. Ecology Letters 14: 1211–1219.

  31. Naeem S, Duffy JE, Zavaleta E. 2012. The Functions of Biological Diversity in an Age of Extinction. Science . 336: 1401–1406.

  32. Naeem S, Thompson LJ, Lawler SP, Lawton JH, Woodfin RM. 1994. Declining biodiversity can alter the performance of ecosystems. Nature 368: 734–737.

  33. Paquette A, Messier C. 2011. The effect of biodiversity on tree productivity: from temperate to boreal forests. Global Ecology and Biogeography 20: 170–180.

  34. Perrings C , Naeem S , Ahrestani F , Bunker DE , Burkill P , et al. 2010. Ecosystem Services for 2020. Science 330: 323–324.

  35. Ramankutty N, Evan AT, Monfreda C, Foley JA. 2008. Farming the planet: 1. Geographic distribution of global agricultural lands in the year 2000. Global Biogeochem. Cycles 22: GB1003.

  36. Rockstrom J , Steffen W , Noone K , Persson A , Chapin FS , et al. 2009. A safe operating space for humanity. Nature 461: 472–475.

  37. Schindler DE , Hilborn R , Chasco B , Boatright CP , Quinn TP , et al. 2010. Population diversity and the portfolio effect in an exploited species. Nature 465: 609–612.

  38. Schlesinger WH, Bernhardt ES. 2012. Biogeochemistry: An Analysis of Global Change . 3d edition. Oxford, UK: Academic Press.

  39. Sekercioglu C. 2012. Bird functional diversity and ecosystem services in tropical forests, agroforests and agricultural areas. Journal of Ornithology 153: 153–161.

  40. Vellend M, Cornwerll WK, Magnuson-Ford K, Mooers AØ. 2011. Measuring phylogenetic diversity. Pages 194–207 in Magurran AE and McGill BJ, editors. Biological Diversity: Frontiers in Measurement ane Assessment . Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

  41. Whitman WB, Coleman DC, Wiebe WJ. 1998. Prokaryotes: The unseen majority. PNAS 95: 6578–6583.

  42. Wittebolle LM , Clement L , Balloi A , Daffonchio D , Heylen K , et al. 2009. Initial community evenness favors functionality under selective stress. Nature 457: 623–626.

  43. Worm B , Barbier EB , Beaumont N , Duffy JE , Folke C , et al. 2006. Impacts of biodiversity loss on ocean ecosystem services. Science 314: 787–790.

  44. Zak DR, Blackwood CB, Waldrop MP. 2006. A molecular dawn for biogeochemistry. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 21: 288–295.

  45. Zalasiewcz J , Williams M , Smith AB , Barry LT , Coe AL , et al. 2008. Are we now living in the Anthropocene? GSA Today 18: 4–8.

  46. Zavaleta ES, Pasari JR, Hulvey KB, Tilman GD. 2010. Sustaining multiple ecosystem functions in grassland communities requires higher biodiversity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107: 1443–1446.

comments powered by Disqus