Approaches to defining a planetary boundary for biodiversity |
| |
| Institution: | 1. Centre for Biodiversity and Environment Research, Department of Genetics, Evolution and Environment, University College London, London WC1E 6BT, UK;2. Natural Resources and Environment, CSIR, PO Box 320, Stellenbosch 7599, South Africa;3. PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, Bilthoven, The Netherlands;4. Environmental Systems Analysis Group, Wageningen University, The Netherlands;5. Stockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm University, SE-106 91 Stockholm, Sweden;6. Centre for Studies in Complexity, Stellenbosch University, South Africa;7. Institute of Arctic Biology, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks, AK 99775, USA;8. Instituto Multidisciplinario de Biología Vegetal (IMBIV-CONICET) and Departamento de Diversidad Biológica y Ecología, FCEFyN, Universidad Nacional de Córdoba, CC 495, 5000 Córdoba, Argentina;9. Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science, Lowestoft NR33 0HT, UK;10. School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK;11. Univ Paris-Sud, Laboratoire ESE, UMR 8079 Univ Paris-Sud/CNRS/AgroParisTech, F 91405 Orsay, France;12. Marine Spatial Ecology Lab., School of Biological Sciences, Goddard Building, Room 170, University of Queensland, St Lucia Campus, Brisbane, Queensland 4072, Australia;13. Department of Life Sciences, Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, UK;14. Natural Resources and Environment, CSIR, PO Box 395, Pretoria 0001, South Africa;15. Department of Biology, University of Bergen, Postbox 7803, N-5020 Bergen, Norway;p. Ocean and Earth Science, National Oceanography Centre, University of Southampton, Southampton SO14 3ZH, UK;q. The Fenner School of Environment and Society, The Australian National University, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory 0200, Australia;r. Department of Life Sciences, Imperial College London, Silwood Park Campus, Buckhurst Road, Ascot, Berkshire SL5 7PY, UK |
| |
| Abstract: | The idea that there is an identifiable set of boundaries, beyond which anthropogenic change will put the Earth system outside a safe operating space for humanity, is attracting interest in the scientific community and gaining support in the environmental policy world. Rockstrom et al. (2009) identify nine such boundaries and highlight biodiversity loss as being the single boundary where current rates of extinction put the Earth system furthest outside the safe operating space. Here we review the evidence to support a boundary based on extinction rates and identify weaknesses with this metric and its bearing on humanity's needs. While changes to biodiversity are of undisputed importance, we show that both extinction rate and species richness are weak metrics for this purpose, and they do not scale well from local to regional or global levels. We develop alternative approaches to determine biodiversity loss boundaries and extend our analysis to consider large-scale responses in the Earth system that could affect its suitability for complex human societies which in turn are mediated by the biosphere. We suggest three facets of biodiversity on which a boundary could be based: the genetic library of life; functional type diversity; and biome condition and extent. For each of these we explore the science needed to indicate how it might be measured and how changes would affect human societies. In addition to these three facets, we show how biodiversity's role in supporting a safe operating space for humanity may lie primarily in its interactions with other boundaries, suggesting an immediate area of focus for scientists and policymakers. |
| |
| Keywords: | Biodiversity Planetary boundary Phylogenetic diversity Functional diversity Biome integrity |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录！ |
|
