CONSERVATIONISTS need to rethink their approach to biodiversity according to a study by Scottish researchers, which revealed that the number of species present in individual ecosystems remained the same over time.
Scientists at St Andrews University have contradicted expectations that the global biodiversity crisis would be mimicked at a small scale, for example, by individual lakes or forests. In fact, they found that while existing species in a particular area might be pushed out and replaced, the overall number of species in the habitat remained roughly the same.
Dr Maria Dornelas, of the university's Centre for Biological Diversity and Scottish Oceans Institute, said: "Contrary to expectations, we did not observe consistent loss of species through time - indeed we found as many surveys with a systematic loss as well as gain in the number of species recorded through time. This is surprising given current concerns of a biodiversity crisis and abnormally high extinction rates."
The four-year study examined 100 communities and 35,000 species spanning from trees to starfish. It took in 6 million observations about animal and plant life in terrestrial, freshwater and marine habitats from the poles to the equator.
However, the researchers stress that while the results surprised them, they do not detract from the threat many of the world's species are under at a global level from loss of habitat, climate change and the spread of human settlements.
While at the small-scale individual ecosystems appear to remain equally diverse even as they change, when compared against one another the various separate ecosystems are becoming increasingly similar to one another as biodiversity declines overall.
This is reflected in wildlife with the decline of Scotland's native red squirrel in the face of competition from the more aggressive North American grey squirrel. At the same time, birds such as starlings have been able to proliferate across North America and north-west Europe because they are suited to a wide range of environments.
Professor Anne Magurran, also of the institute, said: "What we found was that there's more churning in the composition of the community than you would expect by chance. One likely explanation is that the species coming in are more suited to the habitats.
"So some species are becoming very common, they are found almost everywhere - the starling being one example.
"Other species which are more specialist in their habitat requirements are becoming less common. This is called homogenisation. So habitats, communities and ecosystems are becoming more similar to one another, even though the number of species living there do not change dramatically."
The study, published in the journal Science, was carried out in collaboration with US ecologists Nick Gotelli, of the University of Vermont, and Brian McGill, of the University of Maine. The research was funded by the Euro-pean Research Council project BioTIME.
Prof Gotelli, along with the other report authors, was keen to emphasise that the "findings do not negate the fact that many of the world's species and habitats are under grave threat". He added: "What we do suggest is that scientists and policymakers should expand the focus of conservation science and planning to cover biodiversity change as well as loss."
Prof McGill said: "Conservation scientists will need to shift from just talking about how many species are found in a place to talking about which species are found in a place."
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article