Nature's capacity to 'bounce back' when species are lost is overestimated: study(phys.org)
346 points by pseudolus 7 days ago | 178 comments
tl;dr: A large meta-analysis combining 423 studies and 222,829 data points across 23 ecosystem services found that "functional redundancy"—the assumption that ecosystems can absorb species losses because remaining species pick up the slack—is largely wrong, with most benefits scaling continuously with biodiversity. Ocean carbon sequestration showed the strongest dependence on biodiversity of any service measured, though it's also among the least-studied, raising concerns for blue carbon climate strategies. Exceptions exist for services like coastal flood protection, which often rely on a few foundational species rather than overall diversity.
HN Discussion:
  • ↑Historical/cultural critique noting 'natural equilibrium' is a flawed cybernetic-era concept, reinforcing the article
  • ↑Real-world examples (cod fishery, logged forests) corroborate the article's finding that ecosystems don't bounce back
  • ↑The finding is intuitive/already assumed; recovery only happens on evolutionary timescales
  • ~Nature will reach some state regardless; the real concern is pace of change relative to human adaptation
  • ↓Questioning the study by asking whether costs of biodiversity were also considered