Wednesday, May 25, 2022
Contact    |    RSS icon Twitter icon Facebook icon  
You are viewing: Home > News > Natural World > News story
Welcome Guest ( Login or Register )  

Did you know that you can now support us on Patreon ?

You can subscribe for less than the cost of a cup of coffee - and we'll even throw in a range of exclusive perks as a way to say thank you.
Natural World

Only 3% of Earth's land ecosystems are intact

April 15, 2021 | Comment icon 7 comments

Humans have had a huge impact on Earth's ecosystems. Image Credit: CC BY-SA 2.0 Dirk Hartung
Mankind's relentless and destructive influence has damaged just about every ecosystem on Earth.
Andrew Plumptre of the Cambridge Conservation Institute at the University of Cambridge discusses the findings of a new study that examines how much of our planet's ecosystems are still intact.

Few things excite biologists more than contemplating the parts of the world still relatively free of human damage. For the last 30 years, scientists intent on protecting Earth's biodiversity have sought to enshrine targets for preserving and expanding these remaining areas of wilderness.

But what actually is wilderness, and how do we know when we've found it? Most people would call anywhere that's remote and with few human inhabitants wilderness, but for scientists, it's more complicated. Most scientific definitions of wilderness centre on the concept of "intactness". If the basic structure of a habitat, such as a forest, is intact and there is little evidence of human impact, then it is often considered wilderness.

Studies conducted over the past decade have tried to map how intact ecosystems are on a global scale using satellite imagery. Their estimates suggest that between 20% and 40% of the planet's land surface could be considered ecologically intact. But what can be detected by satellites is a poor measure of how wild a habitat actually is. Beneath the seemingly intact canopy, the extinction of large mammals and birds through hunting and introducing invasive species and diseases has depleted the biodiversity of the world's wilderness areas.

In a new study, my colleagues and I used a different definition of intact ecosystems that considers whether all species known to have occurred in an area are still present and whether they're sufficiently abundant to play their ecological roles, such as top predators or seed dispersers. We set the benchmark at AD1500, which means that only parts of the world which are as ecologically intact as they were 500 years ago - with the same complement of species at similar levels of abundance - could be considered wilderness.

We discovered that only 2.8% of the planet's land surface fits this description. These patches, each 10,000 square kilometres or larger, are scattered in various places around the world. They include the Nouabale-Ndoki National Park in the Congo, the Serengeti-Ngorongoro in Tanzania, the Alto Rio Negro indigenous territory in the Amazon forest, the Great Siberian Polynya in northern Russia and Kawesqar National Park in southern Chile. These are very rare and special places that should be conserved, but only 11% of them fall within a protected area.

The decade of restoration

Just a tiny fraction of Earth's land ecosystems are as intact as they were 500 years ago. What might it take to restore them?
Clearly, where a species has gone extinct, the original wilderness cannot be revived. But where species have been locally eradicated but survive elsewhere, there's hope for restoring an ecosystem's integrity by reintroducing species. This will take a significant commitment from governments and multinational bodies, as reintroduction can be costly and difficult. The original threats to wildlife have to be eliminated to ensure success.

But we predict that ecosystems with communities of wildlife at historical levels of abundance and activity could be restored on up to 20% of Earth's land. Focusing on areas of the world where the habitat appears intact from satellite images, we identified places where five or fewer large animal species have been lost and where it might be feasible to return them.

For example, some protected areas in the Congo Basin have lost forest elephants, but these areas are still large and remote enough and with plenty of intact habitat to support this species. Reintroducing elephants here could be successful if hunting can be brought under control.

As the world considers a new framework for managing biodiversity, the integrity of ecosystems is emerging as an important goal. The UN has also called the 2020s the "decade of restoration", when national efforts should turn to restoring degraded habitats.

Repairing the world's most damaged habitats is undoubtedly important, but there's an opportunity to restore relatively intact habitats to something resembling their former glory. Instead of just conserving them, let's be ambitious and try to expand these rare and pristine patches by reintroducing long-lost animals. If successful, these intact sites can serve as an invaluable reminder of what the rest of the world has lost, and a useful benchmark from which to measure what is truly wild.

Andrew Plumptre, Key Biodiversity Areas Secretariat, Cambridge Conservation Institute, University of Cambridge

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license.

Read the original article.

The Conversation

Source: The Conversation | Comments (7)

Recent comments on this story
Comment icon #1 Posted by Dreamer screamer 1 year ago
WW2 was a horrific war and brought the world to destruction, we are still here though.   Dubai the most non capitalist city, now Capitalist city in the world exists and is thriving.  So why the mass panic? Are they  placing the wrong fears into people????    FEAR is all I am seeing with no evidence of a world collapsing or dying.  
Comment icon #2 Posted by keithisco 1 year ago
The problem here is what should be the Datum Point be for restoration? The biome is constantly in flux and many many flora and fauna have been completely eradicated over geologic times. Should we try to reverse all changes and extinction events? That would be an impossibility because many Flora could not exist in our current low-concentration CO2 atmosphere. 
Comment icon #3 Posted by OverSword 1 year ago
I remember watching one of those survival guy videos years ago and he is sitting on this very remote mountain ridge and says you know what?  No matter how isolated a place seems, no matter where I go I always find something like this and he picks up a cap from a Pepsi bottle and shows it to the camera.
Comment icon #4 Posted by Xeno-Fish 1 year ago
The only way to save the planet is for human to go extinct.
Comment icon #5 Posted by Eldorado 1 year ago
Most life on Earth will be killed by lack of oxygen in a billion years.
Comment icon #6 Posted by Xeno-Fish 1 year ago
Hope for the future.
Comment icon #7 Posted by Myles 1 year ago
I wouldn't want that.   Why would I.   I am all for preserving the planet, but that is mostly so that humans and animals can continue to exist.

Please Login or Register to post a comment.

 Total Posts: 7,267,584    Topics: 298,928    Members: 197,020

 Not a member yet ? Click here to join - registration is free and only takes a moment!
Recent news and articles