Biodiversity is the degree of variation of life. This can refer to genetic variation, species variation, or ecosystem variation within an area, biome, or planet. Terrestrial biodiversity tends to be highest near the equator, which seems to be the result of the warm climate and high primary productivity. Marine biodiversity tends to be highest along coasts in the Western Pacific, where sea surface temperature is highest and in mid-latitudinal band in all oceans. Biodiversity generally tends to cluster in hotspots, and has been increasing through time but will be likely to slow in the future.
The period since the emergence of humans has displayed an ongoing biodiversity reduction and an accompanying loss of genetic diversity. Named the Holocene extinction, the reduction is caused primarily by human impacts, particularly habitat destruction. Conversely, biodiversity impacts human health in a number of ways, both positively and negatively.
The term biological diversity was used first by wildlife scientist and conservationist Raymond F. Dasmann in the 1968 lay book A Different Kind of Country advocating conservation. The term was widely adopted only after more than a decade, when in the 1980s it came into common usage in science and environmental policy. Thomas Lovejoy, in the foreword to the book Conservation Biology, introduced the term to the scientific community. Until then the term "natural diversity" was common, introduced by The Science Division of The Nature Conservancy in an important 1975 study, "The Preservation of Natural Diversity." By the early 1980s TNC's Science program and its head, Robert E. Jenkins, Lovejoy and other leading conservation scientists at the time in America advocated the use of the term "biological diversity".
Since this period the term has achieved widespread use among biologists, environmentalists, political leaders, and concerned citizens.
A similar term in the United States is "natural heritage." It predates the others and is more accepted by the wider audience interested in conservation. Broader than biodiversity, it includes geology and landforms.
A sampling of fungi collected during summer 2008 in Northern Saskatchewan mixed woods, near LaRonge is an example regarding the species diversity of fungi. In this photo, there are also leaf lichens and mosses.
"Biodiversity" is most commonly used to replace the more clearly defined and long established terms, species diversity and species richness. Biologists most often define biodiversity as the "totality of genes, species, and ecosystems of a region". An advantage of this definition is that it seems to describe most circumstances and presents a unified view of the traditional three levels at which biological variety has been identified:
This multilevel construct is consistent with Dasmann and Lovejoy. An explicit definition consistent with this interpretation was first given in a paper by Bruce A. Wilcox commissioned by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) for the 1982 World National Parks Conference. Wilcox's definition was "Biological diversity is the variety of life forms...at all levels of biological systems (i.e., molecular, organismic, population, species and ecosystem)...". The 1992 United NationsEarth Summit defined "biological diversity" as "the variability among living organisms from all sources, including, 'inter alia', 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". This definition is used in the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity.
One textbook's definition is "variation of life at all levels of biological organization".
Genetically biodiversity can be defined as the diversity of alleles, genes, and organisms. They study processes such as mutation and gene transfer that drive evolution.
Measuring diversity at one level in a group of organisms may not precisely correspond to diversity at other levels. However, tetrapod (terrestrial vertebrates) taxonomic and ecological diversity shows a very close correlation.
Biodiversity is not evenly distributed, rather it varies greatly across the globe as well as within regions. Among other factors, the diversity of all living things (biota) depends on temperature, precipitation, altitude, soils, geography and the presence of other species. The study of the spatial distribution of organisms, species, and ecosystems, is the science of biogeography.
Terrestrial biodiversity is up to 25 times greater than ocean biodiversity. Although a recent discovered method put the total number of species on Earth at 8.7 million of which 2.1 million were estimated to live in the ocean, however this estimate seems to under-represent diversity of microorganisms.
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 mechanisms may contribute to the gradient, but the ultimate factor behind many of them is the greater mean temperature at the equator compared to that of the poles.
Even though terrestrial biodiversity declines from the equator to the poles, some studies claim that this characteristic is unverified in aquatic ecosystems, especially in marine ecosystems. The latitudinal distribution of parasites does not follow this rule.
A biodiversity hotspot is a region with a high level of endemic species that is under threat from humans. The term hotspot was introduced in 1988 by Dr. Sabina Virk. While hotspots are spread all over the world, the majority are forest areas and most are located in the tropics.
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. The island of Madagascar is 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 endemisms (species that are not found naturally anywhere else) of any country. About 10% of the species of the Earth live 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.Madagascar dry deciduous forests and lowland rainforests, possess a high ratio of endemism. Since the island separated from mainland Africa 66 million years ago, many species and ecosystems have evolved independently.Indonesia's 17,000 islands cover 735,355 square miles (1,904,560 km2) contain 10% of the world's flowering plants, 12% of mammals and 17% of reptiles, amphibians and birds—along with nearly 240 million people. 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.
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."
The history of biodiversity during the Phanerozoic (the last 540 million years), starts with rapid growth during the Cambrian explosion—a period during which nearly every phylum of multicellular organisms first appeared. Over the next 400 million years or so, invertebrate diversity showed little overall trend, and vertebrate diversity shows an overall exponential trend. This dramatic rise in diversity was marked by periodic, massive losses of diversity classified as mass extinction events. A significant loss occurred when rainforests collapsed in the carboniferous. The worst was the Permo-Triassic extinction, 251 million years ago. Vertebrates took 30 million years to recover from this event.
The fossil record suggests that the last few million years featured the greatest biodiversity in history. 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. Some scientists believe that corrected for sampling artifacts, modern biodiversity may not be much different from biodiversity 300 million years ago., whereas others consider the fossil record reasonably reflective of the diversification of life. Estimates of the present global macroscopic species diversity vary from 2 million to 100 million, with a best estimate of somewhere near 9 million, the vast majority arthropods. Diversity appears to increase continually in the absence of natural selection.
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 shows a logistic pattern of growth, life on land (insects, plants and tetrapods)shows an exponential rise in diversity. As one author states, "Tetrapods have not yet invaded 64 per cent of potentially habitable modes, and it could be that without human influence the ecological and taxonomic diversity of tetrapods would continue to increase in an exponential fashion until most or all of the available ecospace is filled."
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. 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. The hyperbolic character of biodiversity growth can be similarly accounted for by a feedback between diversity and community structure complexity. 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.
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. It has been argued that the present rate of extinction is sufficient to eliminate most species on the planet Earth within 100 years.
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). Most of the terrestrial diversity is found in tropical forests and in general, land has more species than the ocean; some 8.7 million species may exists on Earth, of which some 2.1 million live in the ocean
"Ecosystem services are the suite of benefits that ecosystems provide to humanity."
These services come in three flavors:
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)
There have been many claims about biodiversity’s effect on these ecosystem services, especially provisioning and regulating services. After an exhaustive survey through peer-reviewed literature to evaluate 36 different claims about biodiversity's effect on ecosystem services, 14 of those claims have been validated, 6 demonstrate mixed support or are unsupported, 3 are incorrect and 13 lack enough evidence to draw definitive conclusions.
Services enhanced by biodiversity
Greater species diversity of plants increases fodder yield (Synthesis of 271 experimental studies)
Greater genetic diversity of plants (i.e.: diversity within a single species) increases overall crop yield (Synthesis of 575 experimental studies); Although another review of 100 experimental studies reports mixed evidence
Greater species diversity of trees increases overall wood production (Synthesis of 53 experimental studies). However, there is not enough data to draw a conclusion about the effect of tree trait diversity on wood production
Greater species diversity of fish increases the stability of fisheries yield (Synthesis of 8 observational studies)
Greater species diversity of natural pest enemies decreases herbivorous pest populations (Data from two separate reviews; Synthesis of 266 experimental and observational studies; Synthesis of 18 observational studies. 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
Greater species diversity of plants decreases disease prevalence on plants (Synthesis of 107 experimental studies)
Greater species diversity of plants increases resistance to plant invasion (Data from two separate reviews; Synthesis of 105 experimental studies; Synthesis of 15 experimental studies)
Greater species diversity of plants increases carbon sequestration, but note that this finding only relates to actual uptake of carbon dioxide and not long term storage, see below; Synthesis of 479 experimental studies)
Greater species diversity of plants increases soil nutrient remineralization (Synthesis of 103 experimental studies)
Greater species diversity of plants increases soil organic matter (Synthesis of 85 experimental studies)
Services with mixed evidence
None to date
Greater species diversity of plants may or may not decrease herbivorous pest populations. Data from two separate reviews suggest that greater diversity decreases pest populations (Synthesis of 40 observational studies; Synthesis of 100 experimental studies). One review found mixed evidence (Synthesis of 287 experimental studies), while another found contrary evidence (Synthesis of 100 experimental studies)
Greater species diversity of animals may or may not decrease disease prevalence on those animals (Synthesis of 45 experimental and observational studies), although a 2013 study offers more support showing that biodiversity may in fact enhance disease resistance within animal communities, at least in amphibian frog ponds. Many more studies must be published in support of diversity to sway the balance of evidence will be such that we can draw a general rule on this service.
Greater species and trait diversity of plants may or may not increase long term carbon storage (Synthesis of 33 observational studies)
Greater pollinator diversity may or may not increase pollination (Synthesis of 7 observational studies), but a publication from March 2013 suggests that increased native pollinator diversity enhances pollen deposition (although not necessarily fruit set as the authors would have you believe, for details explore their lengthy supplementary material).
Services for which biodiversity is a hindrance
Greater species diversity of plants reduces primary production (Synthesis of 7 experimental studies)
Greater genetic and species diversity of a number of organisms reduces freshwater purification (Synthesis of 8 experimental studies, although an attempt by the authors to investigate the effect of detritivore diversity on freshwater purification was unsuccessful due to a lack of available evidence (only 1 observational study was found
Services for which there is insufficient data to draw conclusions
Effect of species diversity of plants on biofuel yield (In a survey of the literature, the investigators only found 3 studies)
Effect of species diversity of fish on fishery yield (In a survey of the literature, the investigators only found 4 experimental studies and 1 observational study)
Effect of species diversity on the stability of biofuel yield (In a survey of the literature, the investigators did not find any studies)
Effect of species diversity of plants on the stability of fodder yield (In a survey of the literature, the investigators only found 2 studies)
Effect of species diversity of plants on the stability of crop yield (In a survey of the literature, the investigators only found 1 study)
Effect of genetic diversity of plants on the stability of crop yield (In a survey of the literature, the investigators only found 2 studies)
Effect of diversity on the stability of wood production (In a survey of the literature, the investigators could not find any studies)
Effect of species diversity of multiple taxa on erosion control (In a survey of the literature, the investigators could not find any studies – they did however find studies on the effect of species diversity and root biomass)
Effect of diversity on flood regulation (In a survey of the literature, the investigators could not find any studies)
Effect of species and trait diversity of plants on soil moisture (In a survey of the literature, the investigators only found 2 studies)
Other sources have reported somewhat conflicting results, and in 1997 Robert Costanza and colleagues reported the estimated global value of ecosystem services (not captured in traditional markets) at an average of $33 trillion annually.
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. Biodiversity also affords many non-material benefits including spiritual and aesthetic values, knowledge systems and education.
Agricultural diversity can be divided into two categories: intraspecific diversity, which includes the genetic variety within a single species, like the potato (Solanum tuberosum) that is composed of many different forms and types (e.g.: in the U.S. we 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. Thinking about this diversity we might note that many small vegetable farmers grow many different crops like potatoes, and also carrots, peppers, lettuce etc.
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).
The control of associated biodiversity is one of the great agricultural challenges that farmers face. On monoculture farms, the approach is generally to eradicate associated diversity using a suite of biologically destructive pesticides, mechanized tools and transgenic engineering techniques, then to rotate crops. Although some polyculture farmers use the same techniques, they also employ integrated pest management strategies as well as strategies that are more labor-intensive, but generally less dependent on capital, biotechnology and energy.
Interspecific crop diversity is, in part, responsible for offering variety in what we eat. Intraspecific diversity, the variety of alleles within a single species, also offers us choice in our diets. If a crop fails in a monoculture, we rely on agricultural diversity to replant the land with something new. If a wheat crop is destroyed by a pest we may plant a hardier variety of wheat the next year, relying on intraspecific diversity. We may forgo wheat production in that area and plant a different species altogether, relying on interspecific diversity. Even an agricultural society which primarily grows monocultures, relies on biodiversity at some point.
The Irish potato blight of 1846 was a major factor in the deaths of one million people and the emigration of about two million. It was the result of planting only two potato varieties, both vulnerable to the blight, Phytophthora infestans, which arrived in 1845
When rice grassy stunt virus struck rice fields from Indonesia to India in the 1970s, 6,273 varieties were tested for resistance. Only one was resistant, an Indian variety, and known to science only since 1966. This variety formed a hybrid with other varieties and is now widely grown.
Coffee rust attacked coffee plantations in Sri Lanka, Brazil, and Central America in 1970. A resistant variety was found in Ethiopia. Although the diseases are themselves a form of biodiversity.
Although about 80 percent of humans' food supply comes from just 20 kinds of plants, humans use at least 40,000 species. Many people depend on these species for food, shelter, and clothing. 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.
Biodiversity's relevance to human health is becoming an international political issue, as scientific evidence builds on the global health implications of biodiversity loss. This issue is closely linked with the issue of climate change, 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.
The growing demand and lack of drinkable water on the planet presents an additional challenge to the future of human health. Partly, the problem lies in the success of water suppliers to increase supplies, and failure of groups promoting preservation of water resources. While the distribution of clean water increases, in some parts of the world it remains unequal. According to 2008 World Population Data Sheet, only 62% of least developed countries are able to access clean water.
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. Biodiversity is also known to have an important role in reducing disaster risk, and in post-disaster relief and recovery efforts.
Biodiversity provides critical support for drug discovery and the availability of medicinal resources. 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 micro-organisms, while about 80% of the world population depends on medicines from nature (used in either modern or traditional medical practice) for primary healthcare. Only a tiny fraction of wild species has been investigated for medical potential. Biodiversity has been critical to advances throughout the field of bionics. Evidence from market analysis and biodiversity science indicates that the decline in output from the pharmaceutical sector since the mid-1980s can be attributed to a move away from natural product exploration ("bioprospecting") in favor of genomics and synthetic chemistry, indeed claims about the value of undiscovered pharmaceuticals may not provide enough incentive for companies in free markets to search for them because of the high cost of development; meanwhile, natural products have a long history of supporting significant economic and health innovation. Marine ecosystems are particularly important, although inappropriate bioprospecting can increase biodiversity loss, as well as violating the laws of the communities and states from which the resources are taken.
Many industrial materials derive directly from biological sources. These include building materials, fibers, dyes, rubber and oil. Biodiversity is also important to the security of resources such as water, timber, paper, fiber, and food. As a result, biodiversity loss is a significant risk factor in business development and a threat to long term economic sustainability.
Biodiversity, leisure, cultural and aesthetic value
Biodiversity enriches leisure activities such as hiking, birdwatching or natural history study. Biodiversity inspires musicians, painters, sculptors, writers and other artists. Many cultures view themselves as an integral part of the natural world which requires them to respect other living organisms.
Popular activities such as gardening, fishkeeping and specimen collecting strongly depend on biodiversity. The number of species involved in such pursuits is in the tens of thousands, though the majority do not enter commerce.
The relationships between the original natural areas of these often exotic animals and plants and commercial collectors, suppliers, breeders, propagators and those who promote their understanding and enjoyment are complex and poorly understood. The general public responds well to exposure to rare and unusual organisms, reflecting their inherent value.
Philosophically it could be argued that biodiversity has intrinsic aesthetic and spiritual value to mankindin 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.
"There is now unequivocal evidence that biodiversity loss reduces the efficiency by which ecological communities capture biologically essential resources, produce biomass, decompose and recycle biologically essential nutrients... There is mounting evidence that biodiversity increases the stability of ecosystem functions through time... Diverse communities are more productive because they contain key species that have a large influence on productivity, and differences in functional traits among organisms increase total resource capture... The impacts of diversity loss on ecological processes might be sufficiently large to rival the impacts of many other global drivers of environmental change... Maintaining multiple ecosystem processes at multiple places and times requires higher levels of biodiversity than does a single process at a single place and time."
Discovered and predicted total number of species on land and in the oceans
According to Mora and colleagues, the total number of terrestrial species is estimated to be around 8.7 million while the number of oceanic species is much lower, estimated at 2.2 million. The authors note that these estimates are strongest for eukaryotic organisms and likely represent the lower bound of prokaryote diversity. Other estimates include:
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. Some 0.075 million species of fungi had been documented by 2001)
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. The findings may eventually cause a significant change in the way science defines species and other taxonomic categories.
Since the rate of extinction has increased, many extant species may become extinct before they are described.
Species loss rates
No longer do we have to justify the existence of humid tropical forests on the feeble grounds that they might carry plants with drugs that cure human disease. Gaia theory forces us to see that they offer much more than this. Through their capacity to evapotranspirate vast volumes of water vapor, they serve to keep the planet cool by wearing a sunshade of white reflecting cloud. Their replacement by cropland could precipitate a disaster that is global in scale.
During the last century, decreases in biodiversity have been increasingly observed. In 2007, German Federal Environment Minister Sigmar Gabriel cited estimates that up to 30% of all species will be extinct by 2050. Of these, about one eighth of known plant species are threatened with extinction. Estimates reach as high as 140,000 species per year (based on Species-area theory). This figure indicates unsustainable ecological practices, because few species emerge each year. Almost all scientists acknowledge that 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. As of 2012, some studies suggest that 25% of all mammal species could be extinct in 20 years.
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.
Deforestation and increased road-building in the Amazon Rainforest are a significant concern because of increased human encroachment upon wild areas, increased resource extraction and further threats to biodiversity.
Habitat size and numbers of species are systematically related. Physically larger species and those living at lower latitudes or in forests or oceans are more sensitive to reduction in habitat area. Conversion to "trivial" standardized ecosystems (e.g., monoculture following deforestation) effectively destroys habitat for the more diverse species that preceded the conversion. In some countries lack of property rights or lax law/regulatory enforcement necessarily leads to biodiversity loss (degradation costs having to be supported by the community).
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.
The number of species invasions has been on the rise at least since the beginning of the 1900s. Species are increasingly being moved by humans (on purpose and accidentally). In some cases the invaders are causing drastic changes and damage to their new habitats (e.g.: zebra mussels and the emerald ash borer in the Great Lakes region and the lion fish along the North American Atlantic coast). Some evidence suggests that invasive species are competitive in their new habitats because they are subject to less pathogen disturbance. Others report confounding evidence that occasionally suggest that species-rich communities harbor many native and exotic species simultaneously while some say that diverse ecosystems are more resilient and resist invasive plants and animals. An important question is, "do invasive species cause extinctions?" Many studies cite effects of invasive species on natives, but not extinctions. Invasive species seem to increase local (i.e.: alpha diversity) diversity, which decreases turnover of diversity (i.e.: beta diversity). Overall gamma diversity may be lowered because species are going extinct because of other causes, 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, 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.
Not all introduced species are invasive, nor all invasive species deliberately introduced. In cases such as the zebra mussel, invasion of US waterways was unintentional. In other cases, such as mongooses in Hawaii, the introduction is deliberate but ineffective (nocturnalrats were not vulnerable to the diurnal mongoose). In other cases, such as oil palms in Indonesia and Malaysia, the introduction produces substantial economic benefits, but the benefits are accompanied by costly unintended consequences.
Finally, an introduced species may unintentionally injure a species that depends on the species it replaces. In Belgium, Prunus spinosa from Eastern Europe leafs much sooner than its West European counterparts, disrupting the feeding habits of the Thecla betulae butterfly (which feeds on the leaves). Introducing new species often leaves endemic and other local species unable to compete with the exotic species and unable to survive. The exotic organisms may be predators, parasites, or may simply outcompete indigenous species for nutrients, water and light.
At present, several countries have already imported so many exotic species, particularly agricultural and ornamental plants, that their own indigenous fauna/flora may be outnumbered.
Endemic species can be threatened with extinction 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. 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.
In agriculture and animal husbandry, the Green Revolution popularized the use of conventional hybridization to increase yield. Often hybridized breeds originated in developed countries and were further hybridized with local varieties in the developing world to create high yield strains resistant to local climate and diseases. Local governments and industry have been pushing hybridization. Formerly huge gene pools of various wild and indigenous breeds have collapsed causing widespread genetic erosion and genetic pollution. This has resulted in loss of genetic diversity and biodiversity as a whole.
Genetic erosion coupled with genetic pollution may be destroying unique genotypes, thereby creating a hidden crisis which could result in a severe threat to our food security. Diverse genetic material could cease to exist which would impact our ability to further hybridize food crops and livestock against more resistant diseases and climatic changes.
Global warming is also considered to be a major potential threat to global biodiversity in the future. For example coral reefs - which are biodiversity hotspots - will be lost in 20 to 40 years if global warming continues at the current trend.
Climate change has seen many claims about potential to affect biodiversity but evidence supporting the statement is tenuous. Increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide certainly affects plant morphology and is acidifying oceans, and temperature affects species ranges, phenology, and weather, but the major impacts that have been predicted are still just potential impacts. We have not documented major extinctions yet, even as climate change drastically alters the biology of many species.
In 2004, an international collaborative study on four continents estimated that 10 percent of species would become extinct by 2050 because of global warming. "We need to limit climate change or we wind up with a lot of species in trouble, possibly extinct," said Dr. Lee Hannah, a co-author of the paper and chief climate change biologist at the Center for Applied Biodiversity Science at Conservation International.
From 1950 to 2011, world population increased from 2.5 billion to 7 billion and is forecast to reach a plateau of more than 9 billion during the 21st century. Sir David King, former chief scientific adviser to the UK government, told a parliamentary inquiry: "It is self-evident that the massive growth in the human population through the 20th century has had more impact on biodiversity than any other single factor." At least until the middle of the 21st century, worldwide losses of pristine biodiverse land will probably depend much on the worldwide human birth rate.
A schematic image illustrating the relationship between biodiversity, ecosystem services, human well-being, and poverty. The illustration shows where conservation action, strategies and plans can influence the drivers of the current biodiversity crisis at local, regional, to global scales.
Conservation biology is reforming around strategic plans to protect biodiversity. 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. Action plans identify ways of sustaining human well-being, employing natural capital, market capital, and ecosystem services.
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.
Protection and restoration techniques
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). Removal is practical only given large groups of individuals due to the economic cost.
Gene banks are collections of specimens and genetic material. Some banks intend to reintroduce banked species to the ecosystem (e.g., via tree nurseries).
Reduction of 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.
Focusing on limited areas of higher potential biodiversity promises greater immediate return on investment than spreading resources evenly or focusing on areas of little diversity but greater interest in biodiversity.
A second strategy focuses on areas that retain most of their original diversity, which typically require little or no restoration. These are typically non-urbanized, non-agricultural areas. Tropical areas often fit both criteria, given their natively high diversity and relative lack of development.
A great deal of work is occurring to preserve the natural characteristics of Hopetoun Falls, Australia while continuing to allow visitor access.
Global agreements such as the Convention on Biological Diversity, give "sovereign national rights over biological resources" (not property). 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.
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).
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. 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. Governments struggle to decide whether to focus on for example, genes, genomes, or organisms and species.
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.
India have passed Biological Diversity Act, 2002 for preservation of biological diversity in India, and provides mechanism for equitable sharing of benefits arising out use of traditional biological resources and knowledge.
Taxonomic and size relationships
Less than 1% of all species that have been described have been studied beyond simply noting their existence. The vast majority of Earth's species are microbial. Contemporary biodiversity physics is "firmly fixated on the visible [macroscopic] world". 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". Insect extinction rates are high—supporting the Holocene extinction hypothesis.
^Field, Richard; Hawkins, Bradford A.; Cornell, Howard V.; Currie, David J.; Diniz-Filho, J. Alexandre F.; Guégan, Jean-François; Kaufman, Dawn M.; Kerr, Jeremy T.; Mittelbach, Gary G.; Oberdorff, Thierry; O’Brien, Eileen M.; Turner, John R. G. (1 January 2009). "Spatial species-richness gradients across scales: a meta-analysis". Journal of Biogeography36 (1): 132–147. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2699.2008.01963.x.
^McPeek, Mark A.; Brown, Jonathan M. (1 April 2007). "Clade Age and Not Diversification Rate Explains Species Richness among Animal Taxa". The American Naturalist169 (4): E97–E106. doi:10.1086/512135. PMID17427118.
^Rabosky, Daniel L. (1 August 2009). "Ecological limits and diversification rate: alternative paradigms to explain the variation in species richness among clades and regions". Ecology Letters12 (8): 735–743. doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2009.01333.x. PMID19558515.
^Cockell, Charles (2006). Biological processes associated with impact events ESF IMPACT (1. ed.). Berlin: Springer. pp. 197–219. ISBN978-3-540-25735-6.
^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 Sciences353 (1365): 113–130. doi:10.1098/rstb.1998.0195.
^Bond, David P.G.; Wignall, Paul B. (1 June 2008). "The role of sea-level change and marine anoxia in the Frasnian–Famennian (Late Devonian) mass extinction". Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology263 (3–4): 107–118. doi:10.1016/j.palaeo.2008.02.015.
^ abWilcox, Bruce A. 1984. In situ conservation of genetic resources: determinants of minimum area requirements. In National Parks, Conservation and Development, Proceedings of the World Congress on National Parks,, J.A. McNeely and K.R. Miller, Smithsonian Institution Press, pp. 18–30.
^Daniel, T. C.; Muhar, A.; Arnberger, A.; Aznar, O.; Boyd, J. W.; Chan, K. M. A.; Costanza, R.; Elmqvist, T.; Flint, C. G.; Gobster, P. H.; Gret-Regamey, A.; Lave, R.; Muhar, S.; Penker, M.; Ribe, R. G.; Schauppenlehner, T.; Sikor, T.; Soloviy, I.; Spierenburg, M.; Taczanowska, K.; Tam, J.; von der Dunk, A. (21 May 2012). "Contributions of cultural services to the ecosystem services agenda". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences109 (23): 8812–8819. Bibcode:2012PNAS..109.8812D. doi:10.1073/pnas.1114773109.
^ abcCardinale, Bradley. J.; Matulich, K. L.; Hooper, D. U.; Byrnes, J. E.; Duffy, E.; Gamfeldt, L.; Balvanera, P.; O'Connor, M. I.; Gonzalez, A. (March 2011). "The functional role of producer diversity in ecosystems". American Journal of Botany98 (3): 572–592. doi:10.3732/ajb.1000364.
^Kiaer, Lars P.; Skovgaard, Ib M.; Østergård, Hanne (1 December 2009). "Grain yield increase in cereal variety mixtures: A meta-analysis of field trials". Field Crops Research114 (3): 361–373. doi:10.1016/j.fcr.2009.09.006.
^editor, Douglas J. Futuyma, editor ; H. Bradley Shaffer, associate editor ; Daniel Simberloff, associate (2009). Annual review of ecology, evolution, and systematics. Palo Alto, Calif.: Annual Reviews. pp. 573–592. ISBN978-0-8243-1440-8.
^Philpott, Stacy M.; Soong, Oliver; Lowenstein, Jacob H.; Pulido, Astrid Luz; Lopez, Diego Tobar; Flynn, Dan F. B.; DeClerck, Fabrice (1 October 2009). "Functional richness and ecosystem services: bird predation on arthropods in tropical agroecosystems". Ecological Applications19 (7): 1858–1867. doi:10.1890/08-1928.1.
^Van Bael, Sunshine A; Philpott, SM, Greenberg, R, Bichier, P, Barber, NA, Mooney, KA, Gruner, DS (Apr 2008). "Birds as predators in tropical agroforestry systems". Ecology89 (4): 928–934. doi:10.1890/06-1976.1.
^Vance-Chalcraft, Heather D.; Rosenheim, Jay A.; Vonesh, James R.; Osenberg, Craig W.; Sih, Andrew (1 November 2007). "THE INFLUENCE OF INTRAGUILD PREDATION ON PREY SUPPRESSION AND PREY RELEASE: A META-ANALYSIS". Ecology88 (11): 2689–2696. doi:10.1890/06-1869.1.
^ abcdeQuijas, Sandra; Schmid, Bernhard; Balvanera, Patricia (1 November 2010). "Plant diversity enhances provision of ecosystem services: A new synthesis". Basic and Applied Ecology11 (7): 582–593. doi:10.1016/j.baae.2010.06.009.
^Levine, Jonathan M.; Adler, Peter B.; Yelenik, Stephanie G. (6 September 2004). "A meta-analysis of biotic resistance to exotic plant invasions". Ecology Letters7 (10): 975–989. doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2004.00657.x.
^Keesing, Felicia; Belden, Lisa K.; Daszak, Peter; Dobson, Andrew; Harvell, C. Drew; Holt, Robert D.; Hudson, Peter; Jolles, Anna; Jones, Kate E.; Mitchell, Charles E.; Myers, Samuel S.; Bogich, Tiffany; Ostfeld, Richard S. "Impacts of biodiversity on the emergence and transmission of infectious diseases". Nature468 (7324): 647–652. Bibcode:2010Natur.468..647K. doi:10.1038/nature09575.
^Johnson, Pieter T. J.; Preston, Daniel L.; Hoverman, Jason T.; Richgels, Katherine L. D. (13 February 2013). "Biodiversity decreases disease through predictable changes in host community competence". Nature494 (7436): 230–233. Bibcode:2013Natur.494..230J. doi:10.1038/nature11883.
^Garibaldi, L. A.; Steffan-Dewenter, I.; Winfree, R.; Aizen, M. A.; Bommarco, R.; Cunningham, S. A.; Kremen, C.; Carvalheiro, L. G.; Harder, L. D.; Afik, O.; Bartomeus, I.; Benjamin, F.; Boreux, V.; Cariveau, D.; Chacoff, N. P.; Dudenhoffer, J. H.; Freitas, B. M.; Ghazoul, J.; Greenleaf, S.; Hipolito, J.; Holzschuh, A.; Howlett, B.; Isaacs, R.; Javorek, S. K.; Kennedy, C. M.; Krewenka, K.; Krishnan, S.; Mandelik, Y.; Mayfield, M. M.; Motzke, I.; Munyuli, T.; Nault, B. A.; Otieno, M.; Petersen, J.; Pisanty, G.; Potts, S. G.; Rader, R.; Ricketts, T. H.; Rundlof, M.; Seymour, C. L.; Schuepp, C.; Szentgyorgyi, H.; Taki, H.; Tscharntke, T.; Vergara, C. H.; Viana, B. F.; Wanger, T. C.; Westphal, C.; Williams, N.; Klein, A. M. (28 February 2013). "Wild Pollinators Enhance Fruit Set of Crops Regardless of Honey Bee Abundance". Science. Bibcode:2013Sci...339.1608G. doi:10.1126/science.1230200.
^Costanza, Robert; D'arge, Ralph; De Groot, Rudolf; Farber, Stephen; Grasso, Monica; Hannon, Bruce; Limburg, Karin; Naeem, Shahid et al. (1997). "The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital". Nature387 (6630): 253–260. Bibcode:1997Natur.387..253C. doi:10.1038/387253a0.|displayauthors= suggested (help)
^Mendelsohn, Robert; Balick, Michael J. (1 April 1995). "The value of undiscovered pharmaceuticals in tropical forests". Economic Botany49 (2): 223–228. doi:10.1007/BF02862929.
^(2006) "Molecular Pharming" GMO Compass Retrieved November 5, 2009, GMOcompass.org
^Mendelsohn, Robert; Balick, Michael J. (1 July 1997). "Notes on economic plants". Economic Botany51 (3): 328–328. doi:10.1007/BF02862103.
^Harvey L., 2008. Natural products in drug discovery. Drug Discovery Today
^Hawkins E.S., Reich; Reich, MR (1992). "Japanese-originated pharmaceutical products in the United States from 1960 to 1989: an assessment of innovation". Clin Pharmacol Ther51 (1): 1–11. doi:10.1038/clpt.1992.1. PMID1732073.
^Wilson, J. Bastow; Peet, Robert K.; Dengler, Jürgen; Pärtel, Meelis (1 August 2012). "Plant species richness: the world records". Journal of Vegetation Science23 (4): 796–802. doi:10.1111/j.1654-1103.2012.01400.x.
^Appeltans, Ward; Ahyong, Shane T.; Anderson, Gary; Angel, Martin V.; Artois, Tom; Bailly, Nicolas; Bamber, Roger; Barber, Anthony; Bartsch, Ilse; Berta, Annalisa; Błażewicz-Paszkowycz, Magdalena; Bock, Phil; Boxshall, Geoff; Boyko, Christopher B.; Brandão, Simone Nunes; Bray, Rod A.; Bruce, Niel L.; Cairns, Stephen D.; Chan, Tin-Yam; Cheng, Lanna; Collins, Allen G.; Cribb, Thomas; Curini-Galletti, Marco; Dahdouh-Guebas, Farid; Davie, Peter J.F.; Dawson, Michael N.; De Clerck, Olivier; Decock, Wim; De Grave, Sammy; de Voogd, Nicole J.; Domning, Daryl P.; Emig, Christian C.; Erséus, Christer; Eschmeyer, William; Fauchald, Kristian; Fautin, Daphne G.; Feist, Stephen W.; Fransen, Charles H.J.M.; Furuya, Hidetaka; Garcia-Alvarez, Oscar; Gerken, Sarah; Gibson, David; Gittenberger, Arjan; Gofas, Serge; Gómez-Daglio, Liza; Gordon, Dennis P.; Guiry, Michael D.; Hernandez, Francisco; Hoeksema, Bert W.; Hopcroft, Russell R.; Jaume, Damià; Kirk, Paul; Koedam, Nico; Koenemann, Stefan; Kolb, Jürgen B.; Kristensen, Reinhardt M.; Kroh, Andreas; Lambert, Gretchen; Lazarus, David B.; Lemaitre, Rafael; Longshaw, Matt; Lowry, Jim; Macpherson, Enrique; Madin, Laurence P.; Mah, Christopher; Mapstone, Gill; McLaughlin, Patsy A.; Mees, Jan; Meland, Kenneth; Messing, Charles G.; Mills, Claudia E.; Molodtsova, Tina N.; Mooi, Rich; Neuhaus, Birger; Ng, Peter K.L.; Nielsen, Claus; Norenburg, Jon; Opresko, Dennis M.; Osawa, Masayuki; Paulay, Gustav; Perrin, William; Pilger, John F.; Poore, Gary C.B.; Pugh, Phil; Read, Geoffrey B.; Reimer, James D.; Rius, Marc; Rocha, Rosana M.; Saiz-Salinas, José I.; Scarabino, Victor; Schierwater, Bernd; Schmidt-Rhaesa, Andreas; Schnabel, Kareen E.; Schotte, Marilyn; Schuchert, Peter; Schwabe, Enrico; Segers, Hendrik; Self-Sullivan, Caryn; Shenkar, Noa; Siegel, Volker; Sterrer, Wolfgang; Stöhr, Sabine; Swalla, Billie; Tasker, Mark L.; Thuesen, Erik V.; Timm, Tarmo; Todaro, M. Antonio; Turon, Xavier; Tyler, Seth; Uetz, Peter; van der Land, Jacob; Vanhoorne, Bart; van Ofwegen, Leen P.; van Soest, Rob W.M.; Vanaverbeke, Jan; Walker-Smith, Genefor; Walter, T. Chad; Warren, Alan; Williams, Gary C.; Wilson, Simon P.; Costello, Mark J. (1 December 2012). "The Magnitude of Global Marine Species Diversity". Current Biology22 (23): 2189–2202. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2012.09.036.
^Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Census of Marine Life (CoML) News.BBC.co.uk
^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 Conservation21 (9): 2425–2433. doi:10.1007/s10531-012-0335-x.
^Sanderson, James; Moulton, Michael (August 18, 1998). Wildlife Issues in a Changing World, Second Edition [Paperback]. CRC Press. ISBN978-1-56670-351-2.
^Jim Chen (2003). "Across the Apocalypse on Horseback: Imperfect Legal Responses to Biodiversity Loss". The Jurisdynamics of Environmental Protection: Change and the Pragmatic. Environmental Law Institute. p. 197. ISBN1-58576-071-4.
^"Hippo dilemma". Windows on the Wild: Science and Sustainability. New Africa Books. 2005. ISBN1-86928-380-5.
^C.Michael Hogan. 2010. Deforestation Encyclopedia of Earth. ed. C.Cleveland. NCSE. Washington DC
^Drakare, Stina; Lennon, Jack J.; Hillebrand, Helmut (2006). "The imprint of the geographical, evolutionary and ecological context on species-area relationships". Ecology Letters9 (2): 215–227. doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2005.00848.x. PMID16958886.
^Torchin, Mark E.; Lafferty, Kevin D.; Dobson, Andrew P.; McKenzie, Valerie J.; Kuris, Armand M. (6 February 2003). "Introduced species and their missing parasites". Nature421 (6923): 628–630. Bibcode:2003Natur.421..628T. doi:10.1038/nature01346.
^Levine, Jonathan M.; D'Antonio, Carla M. (1 October 1999). "Elton Revisited: A Review of Evidence Linking Diversity and Invasibility". Oikos87 (1): 15. doi:10.2307/3546992.
^GUREVITCH, J; PADILLA, D (1 September 2004). "Are invasive species a major cause of extinctions?". Trends in Ecology & Evolution19 (9): 470–474. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2004.07.005.
^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 Naturalist160 (6): 766–783. doi:10.1086/343877. PMID18707464.
^Jude, David auth., ed. by M. Munawar (1995). The lake Huron ecosystem: ecology, fisheries and management. Amsterdam: S.P.B. Academic Publishing. ISBN90-5103-117-3.
^RIRDC.gov.au, Genetic Pollution from Farm Forestry using!! eucalypt species and hybrids; A report for the RIRDC/L&WA/FWPRDC; Joint Venture Agroforestry Program; by Brad M. Potts, Robert C. Barbour, Andrew B. Hingston; September 2001; RIRDC Publication No 01/114; RIRDC Project No CPF - 3A; ISBN 0-642-58336-6; ISSN 1440-6845; Australian Government, Rural Industrial Research and Development Corporation[dead link]
^Ainsworth, Elizabeth A.; Long, Stephen P. (18 November 2004). "What have we learned from 15 years of free-air CO2 enrichment (FACE)? A meta-analytic review of the responses of photosynthesis, canopy properties and plant production to rising CO2". New Phytologist165 (2): 351–372. doi:10.1111/j.1469-8137.2004.01224.x. PMID15720649.
^Walther, Gian-Reto; Roques, Alain; Hulme, Philip E.; Sykes, Martin T.; Pyšek, Petr; Kühn, Ingolf; Zobel, Martin; Bacher, Sven; Botta-Dukát, Zoltán; Bugmann, Harald (1 December 2009). "Alien species in a warmer world: risks and opportunities". Trends in Ecology & Evolution24 (12): 686–693. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2009.06.008.
^Lovejoy, edited by Thomas E.; Hannah, Lee (2005). Climate change and biodiversity. New Haven: Yale University Press. pp. 41–55. ISBN0-300-10425-1.
^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[dead link], see also Millenniumassessment.org, Europa.eu
Markov, A. V.; Korotayev, A. V. (2007). "Phanerozoic marine biodiversity follows a hyperbolic trend". Palaeoworld16 (4): 311. doi:10.1016/j.palwor.2007.01.002.edit
Moustakas, A.; Karakassis, I. (2008). "A geographic analysis of the published aquatic biodiversity research in relation to the ecological footprint of the country where the work was done". Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment23 (6): 737. doi:10.1007/s00477-008-0254-2.edit
Pereira, H. M.; Navarro, L. M.; Martins, I. S. S. (2012). "Global Biodiversity Change: The Bad, the Good, and the Unknown". Annual Review of Environment and Resources37: 25. doi:10.1146/annurev-environ-042911-093511.edit