biodiversity concept essay

Essay on Biodiversity for Students and Children

500+ words essay on biodiversity.

Essay on Biodiversity – Biodiversity is the presence of different species of plants and animals on the earth. Moreover, it is also called biological diversity as it is related to the variety of species of flora and fauna. Biodiversity plays a major role in maintaining the balance of the earth.

Furthermore, everything depends upon the biological diversity of different plants and animals. But due to some reasons, biodiversity is decreasing day by day. If it does not stop then our earth could no longer be a place to live in. Therefore different measures help in increasing the biodiversity of the earth.

Methods to Increase Biodiversity

Building wildlife corridors- This means to build connections between wildlife spaces. In other words, many animals are incapable to cross huge barriers. Therefore they are no able to migrate the barrier and breed. So different engineering techniques can make wildlife corridors. Also, help animals to move from one place to the other.

Set up gardens- Setting up gardens in the houses is the easiest way to increase biodiversity. You can grow different types of plants and animals in the yard or even in the balcony. Further, this would help in increasing the amount of fresh air in the house.

Get the huge list of more than 500 Essay Topics and Ideas

Protected areas- protected areas like wildlife sanctuaries and zoo conserve biodiversity. For instance, they maintain the natural habitat of plants and animals. Furthermore, these places are away from any human civilization. Therefore the ecosystem is well maintained which makes it a perfect breeding ground for flora and fauna. In our country, their various wildlife sanctuaries are build that is today spread over a vast area. Moreover, these areas are the only reason some of the animal species are not getting extinct. Therefore the protected areas should increase all over the globe.

Re-wilding – Re-wilding is necessary to avert the damage that has been taking place over centuries. Furthermore, the meaning of re-wilding is introducing the endangered species in the areas where it is extinct. Over the past years, by various human activities like hunting and cutting down of trees the biodiversity is in danger. So we must take the necessary steps to conserve our wildlife and different species of plants.

Importance of Biodiversity

Biodiversity is extremely important to maintain the ecological system. Most Noteworthy many species of plants and animals are dependent on each other.

Therefore if one of them gets extinct, the others will start getting endangered too. Moreover, it is important for humans too because our survival depends on plants and animals. For instance, the human needs food to survive which we get from plants. If the earth does not give us a favorable environment then we cannot grow any crops. As a result, it will no longer be possible for us to sustain on this planet.

Biodiversity in flora and fauna is the need of the hour. Therefore we should take various countermeasures to stop the reduction of endangering of species. Furthermore, pollution from vehicles should decrease. So that animals can get fresh air to breathe. Moreover, it will also decrease global warming which is the major cause of the extinction of the species.

Customize your course in 30 seconds

Which class are you in.

• Travelling Essay
• Picnic Essay
• Our Country Essay
• My Parents Essay
• Essay on Favourite Personality
• Essay on Memorable Day of My Life
• Essay on Knowledge is Power
• Essay on Gurpurab
• Essay on My Favourite Season
• Essay on Types of Sports

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Download the App

ENCYCLOPEDIC ENTRY

Biodiversity.

Biodiversity refers to the variety of living species on Earth, including plants, animals, bacteria, and fungi. While Earth’s biodiversity is so rich that many species have yet to be discovered, many species are being threatened with extinction due to human activities, putting the Earth’s magnificent biodiversity at risk.

Biology, Ecology

grasshoppers

Although all of these insects have a similar structure and may be genetic cousins, the beautiful variety of colors, shapes, camouflage, and sizes showcase the level of diversity possible even within a closely-related group of species.

Photograph by Frans Lanting

Biodiversity is a term used to describe the enormous variety of life on Earth. It can be used more specifically to refer to all of the species  in one region or ecosystem . Bio diversity refers to every living thing, including plants, bacteria, animals, and humans. Scientists have estimated that there are around 8.7 million species of plants and animals in existence. However, only around 1.2 million species have been identified and described so far, most of which are insects. This means that millions of other organisms remain a complete mystery.

Over generations , all of the species that are currently alive today have evolved unique traits that make them distinct from other species . These differences are what scientists use to tell one species from another. Organisms that have evolved to be so different from one another that they can no longer reproduce with each other are considered different species . All organisms that can reproduce with each other fall into one species .

Scientists are interested in how much biodiversity there is on a global scale, given that there is still so much biodiversity to discover. They also study how many species exist in single ecosystems, such as a forest, grassland, tundra, or lake. A single grassland can contain a wide range of species, from beetles to snakes to antelopes. Ecosystems that host the most biodiversity tend to have ideal environmental conditions for plant growth, like the warm and wet climate of tropical regions. Ecosystems can also contain species too small to see with the naked eye. Looking at samples of soil or water through a microscope reveals a whole world of bacteria and other tiny organisms.

Some areas in the world, such as areas of Mexico, South Africa, Brazil, the southwestern United States, and Madagascar, have more bio diversity than others. Areas with extremely high levels of bio diversity are called hotspots . Endemic species — species that are only found in one particular location—are also found in hotspots .

All of the Earth’s species work together to survive and maintain their ecosystems . For example, the grass in pastures feeds cattle. Cattle then produce manure that returns nutrients to the soil, which helps to grow more grass. This manure can also be used to fertilize cropland. Many species provide important benefits to humans, including food, clothing, and medicine.

Much of the Earth’s bio diversity , however, is in jeopardy due to human consumption and other activities that disturb and even destroy ecosystems . Pollution , climate change, and population growth are all threats to bio diversity . These threats have caused an unprecedented rise in the rate of species extinction . Some scientists estimate that half of all species on Earth will be wiped out within the next century. Conservation efforts are necessary to preserve bio diversity and protect endangered species and their habitats.

Media Credits

The audio, illustrations, photos, and videos are credited beneath the media asset, except for promotional images, which generally link to another page that contains the media credit. The Rights Holder for media is the person or group credited.

Production Managers

Program specialists, last updated.

March 11, 2024

User Permissions

For information on user permissions, please read our Terms of Service. If you have questions about how to cite anything on our website in your project or classroom presentation, please contact your teacher. They will best know the preferred format. When you reach out to them, you will need the page title, URL, and the date you accessed the resource.

If a media asset is downloadable, a download button appears in the corner of the media viewer. If no button appears, you cannot download or save the media.

Text on this page is printable and can be used according to our Terms of Service .

Interactives

Any interactives on this page can only be played while you are visiting our website. You cannot download interactives.

Related Resources

What Is Biodiversity?

Biodiversity.

Biodiversity is the extraordinary variety of life on Earth — from genes and species to ecosystems and the valuable functions they perform. E.O. Wilson, the noted biologist and author who coined the term “biodiversity,” explains it as “the very stuff of life.”

For at least 3.8 billion years, a complex web of life has been evolving on Earth. Millions of species inhabit land, freshwater, and ocean ecosystems. All species, including human beings, are intricately linked by their interactions with each other and the environments they live in.

Biodiversity — short for biological diversity — is the variety of all living things and their interactions. Biodiversity changes over time as extinction occurs and new species evolve.

Scientists often speak of three levels of diversity: species, genetic, and ecosystem diversity. In fact, these levels cannot be separated. Each is important, interacting with and influencing others. Changes at one level can cause changes at other levels.

What Is a Species?

Species come in all shapes and sizes, from organisms so small they can only be seen with powerful microscopes to huge redwood trees. They include bacteria, protozoa, fungi, flowering plants, ants, beetles, butterflies, birds, fishes, and large animals such as elephants, whales, and bears. Each species is a group of organisms with unique characteristics. An individual of a species can reproduce successfully, creating viable offspring, only with another member of that species.

We are still learning about how many species exist and how they relate to each other and their environment. Current estimates are of about 10 million species on Earth, of which only about 1.9 million have been named and catalogued. Scientists race to catalog species before they go extinct. An "endemic" species occurs in a particular area and nowhere else.

New species are still being discovered, for example by scientists from the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History. Entomologist Dr. Jonathan Coddington and colleagues published the discovery of the largest web-spinning spider ( Nephila komaci ) in the world in 2009. In 2012, Dr. Terry Erwin and colleagues discovered 177 species of parasitic wasps . Using submersibles to study deep coral reefs, Icthyologist Dr. Carole Baldwin continues to encounter new species of fish . The study of fossils reveals new species from the past that are now extinct. For example, Paleobiologist Dr. Nick Pyenson and colleagues discovered that the diversity of sea cow species used to be higher on Earth.

When a new species is discovered, it is given a name. Scientific naming follows certain rules or conventions. A new species is assigned to a genus based on its relatedness to other organisms. Its unique species name may be related to one characteristic that makes the species different from others, the place it was found, or can have the name of a colleague.

In 2013, Smithsonian Mammalogist Dr. Kristofer Helgen and colleagues named the first new species of carnivorous mammal recorded from the Americas in 35 years. Its relatedness to "olingos" placed it in the genus Bassaricyon , while its species name, neblina , refers to the Andean cloud forests (neblina = "fog") in which it was found. A new species of jellyfish discovered by Dr. Allen Collins  was given the scientific name of Tamoya ohboya , thanks to a teacher's claim that people said "oh boy" when they saw it.

What Is Genetic Diversity?

Biodiversity includes the genes that every individual inherits from its parents and passes on to the next generation. Genetic diversity is found everywhere, from the variety of songs and feather colors of birds to the colors, tastes, and textures of apples and other foods. Genetic variation, which determines the extent to which individuals can adapt to their environments, is extremely important to their survival.

A genome is the complete set of genetic material (i.e., DNA) of an organism. To preserve Earth’s genomic diversity, scientists at the National Museum of Natural History are collecting and freezing hundreds of thousands of DNA samples. The collection will be used for the new field of genomics , a discipline that sequences, assembles, and analyzes the function and structure of genomes, providing information into the future about plants, animals, fungi, bacteria, and protists, even those that are extinct. The Smithsonian's repository of DNA is just one of many that together make up the Global Genome Project that seeks to preserve genetic samples from every species on Earth.

What Is Ecosystem Diversity?

Genes determine the traits of individuals that form populations of a species. Individuals from different species interact to form communities. These interact dynamically with non-living environmental components, such as water or minerals, to form an ecosystem. Some ecosystems such as tropical forests and coral reefs are especially complex and host a large number of species. Other ecosystems such as deserts and Arctic regions have less complexity and thus a lower number of species, but all those species are ecologically important and some are endemic to that ecosystem.

Monitoring Biodiversity

Many Smithsonian scientists are working on ways to monitor and measure biodiversity over time. Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute scientists Dr. Francisco Dallmeier  and Dr. Alfonso Alonso  developed a Framework for the Assessment and Monitoring of Biodiversity. The framework provides guidance about how to go about designing and implementing assessments and monitoring programs, how to report the information gathered, and how to use the gathered scientific information to track the conditions of ecosystems and the species that inhabit them.

For more than three decades, Smithsonian scientists and institutional collaborators with the Forest Global Earth Observatory (ForestGEO) have been studying forest biodiversity and function at more than 60 sites around the world. A newer initiative, the Marine Global Earth Observatory (Marine GEO), brings together Smithsonian marine scientists from the U.S., Belize, and Panama to collaborate with colleagues from around the world to monitor ocean ecosystems.

Botanist Dr. John Kress  took a leadership role in 2006 when the Smithsonian and five other international scientific organizations founded what is now Consortium of Scientific Partners on Biodiversity and has grown to include 24 major scientific organizations as partners. The Consortium looks for innovative ways to investigate biodiversity and explore solutions to loss of biodiversity as humans continue to interact with the biosphere.

Related Resources

Related Videos

• Smithsonian Institution
• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• Host an Event

Yale Sustainability

Yale experts explain biodiversity.

What is biodiversity?

What are the benefits of biodiversity .

What are the threats to biodiversity? 

What can individuals do to protect or enhance biodiversity , what is yale doing.

Participatory Biodiversity Conservation pp 15–32 Cite as

Multiple Perspectives on Biodiversity Conservation: From Concept to Heated Debate

• Cristina Baldauf 2 &
• Vitor de Oliveira Lunardi 3  
• First Online: 14 May 2020

965 Accesses

4 Citations

This chapter will initially explore the concept of biodiversity and its different interpretations, owing to its extensive and varied use since the 1990s. In addition to the well-known definition proposed under the Convention on Biological Diversity, we discuss the concept of biocultural diversity as well as the notion of biodiversity as a discursive phenomenon and its connection to the concept of biopolitics. Next, we discuss the current biodiversity situation in terms of numbers and trends in the context of the Anthropocene , as well as the main drivers of its loss, namely: the reduction of natural habitats, overharvesting, introduction of invasive alien species, pollution, and climate change. Despite broad consensus on the drivers that threaten biodiversity, there are contrasting views on strategies to reduce habitat and species loss. Thus, after outlining the dichotomy between the two schools of thought on conservation (anthropocentric vs. biocentric), we will present several typologies that aim to classify the opinions of the conservation community beyond this initial dichotomy. In general, these typologies reveal that polarized views still sustain contemporary debates on conservation; however, some perspectives do overlap or combine aspects of other views. Finally, in the hope of increasing the effectiveness of biodiversity conservation, we discuss the (im)possibilities of reconciling contrasting viewpoints.

• Aichi biodiversity targets
• Anthropocene
• New conservation science
• Biocultural conservation

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution .

Buying options

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

The merits of land sparing versus land sharing were originally questioned by Green et al. ( 2005 ). Since then, scientists, policy makers, and practitioners have been debating whether agriculture, the main global land-use, should be separated from (land sparing) or integrated within (land sharing) biodiversity-rich areas in order to minimize its ecological impacts. See Perfecto et al. ( 2009 ) and Tscharntke et al. ( 2012 ) for the advantages of land sharing and the links between agriculture, conservation, and food sovereignty, and Phalan ( 2018 ) for a synthesis supporting land sparing. For alternative framings that seek to overcome the dichotomy of the debate around global food system sustainability, see Kremen ( 2015 ), Fischer et al. ( 2017 ), Wittman et al. ( 2017 ), and Vandermeer et al. ( 2018 ).

Airoldi L, Beck MW (2007) Loss, status and trends for coastal marine habitats of Europe. In: Gibson RN, Atkinson RJA, Gordon JDM (eds) Oceanography and marine biology, annual review, vol 45, 1st edn. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 345–405

Google Scholar  

Airoldi L, Balata D, Beck MW (2008) The gray zone: relationships between habitat loss and marine diversity and their applications in conservation. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 366(1–2):8–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jembe.2008.07.034

Article   Google Scholar  

Barnosky AD, Matzke N, Tomiya S et al (2011) Has the Earth’s sixth mass extinction already arrived? Nature 471(7336):51–57. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature09678

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Bellard C, Cassey P, Blackburn TM (2016) Alien species as a driver of recent extinctions. Biol Lett 12(2):20150623. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2015.0623

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Bennett NJ et al (2017) Mainstreaming the social sciences in conservation. Conserv Biol 31(1):56–66. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12788

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Biermann C, Anderson RM (2017) Conservation, biopolitics, and the governance of life and death. Geogr Compass 11(10):e12329. https://doi.org/10.1111/gec3.12329

Brockington D, Duffy R (2010) Capitalism and conservation: the production and reproduction of biodiversity conservation. Antipode 42(3):469–484. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8330.2010.00760.x

Brockington D, Duffy R, Igoe J (2008) Nature unbound: conservation, capitalism and the future of protected areas. Routledge, London

Burch-Brown J, Archer A (2017) In defence of biodiversity. Biol Philos 32(6):969–997. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10539-017-9587-x

Büscher B, Fletcher R (2019) Towards convivial conservation. Conserv Soc 17(3):283–296. https://doi.org/10.4103/cs.cs_19_75

Cahill AE, Aiello-Lammens ME, Fisher-Reid MC et al (2013) How does climate change cause extinction? Proc R Soc B 280(1750):20121890–20121890. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2012.1890

Carlson R (2002) Silent spring. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, Boston

Carpenter KE, Abrar M, Aeby G et al (2008) One-third of reef-building corals face elevated extinction risk from climate change and local impacts. Science 321(5888):560–563. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1159196

CBD (Convention on Biological Diversity) (2010) COP decision X/2. Strategic plan for biodiversity 2011–2020. https://www.cbd.int/decision/cop/?id=12268 . Accessed 15 Jan 2019

Ceballos G, Ehrlich PR (2018) The misunderstood sixth mass extinction. Science 360(6393):1080–1081. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aau0191

Ceballos G, Ehrlich PR, Barnosky AD et al (2015) Accelerated modern human-induced species losses: entering the sixth mass extinction. Sci Adv 1(5):e1400253. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1400253

Chan KM et al (2016) Opinion: why protect nature? Rethinking values and the environment. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 113(6):1462–1465. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1525002113

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Chen IC, Hill JK, Ohlemüller R et al (2011) Rapid range shifts of species associated with high levels of climate warming. Science 333(6045):1024–1026. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1206432

Costello MJ (2019) Unhelpful inflation of threatened species. Science 365(6451):332–333. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aay3467

Crutzen PJ, Stoermer EF (2000) The “anthropocene”. IGBP Glob Chang Newsl 41:17–18

CBD (Convention on Biological Diversity) (1992) The convention on biological diversity. Secretariat of the CBD, U.N. Environment Programme, Montreal. https://www.cbd.int/convention/articles/default.shtml?a=cbd-02 . Accessed 01 October 2019

Dasmann RF (1968) A different kind of country. Macmillan, New York. http://agris.fao.org/agris-search/search.do?recordID=US201300589625 . Accessed 19 Jan 2019

Dinerstein E, Olson D, Joshi A (2017) An ecoregion-based approach to protecting half the terrestrial realm. Bioscience 67(6):534–545. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/bix014

Doak DF, Bakker VJ, Goldstein BE, Hale B. (2014). What is the future of conservation? Trends in Ecolgy & Evolution 29(2): 77–81

Dudley N (ed) (2008) Guidelines for applying protected area management categories. IUCN, Gland. https://portals.iucn.org/library/node/30018 . Accessed 2 Jan 2019

Escobar A (1998) Whose knowledge, whose nature? Biodiversity, conservation, and the political ecology of social movements. J Polit Ecol 5(1):53–82. https://doi.org/10.2458/v5i1.21397

Escobar A (2015) Territorios de diferencia: la ontología política de los “derechos al territorio”. Cuadernos de antropología social 41:25–38. ISSN: 0327-3776. Available at: https://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=180942587002

Fischer J, Lindenmayer DB (2007) Landscape modification and habitat fragmentation: a synthesis. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 16(3):265–280. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1466-8238.2007.00287.x

Fischer J, Abson DJ, Bergsten A et al (2017) Reframing the food–biodiversity challenge. Trends Ecol Evol 32(5):335–345. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2017.02.009

Foucault M (2003) Society must be defended: lectures at the Collège de France 1975–1976. English edition: (2003) (trans. David Macey). Picador: New York, 242

Francis CD, Barber JR (2013) A framework for understanding noise impacts on wildlife: an urgent conservation priority. Front Ecol Environ 11(6):305–313. https://doi.org/10.1890/120183

Gari JA (2000) The political ecology of biodiversity: biodiversity conservation and rural development at the indigenous and peasant grassroots. Thesis Ph.D. University of Oxford

Garnett ST, Burgess ND, Fa JE, Fernández-Llamazares Á et al (2018) A spatial overview of the global importance of indigenous lands for conservation. Nat Sustainability 1(7):369–374. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-018-0100-6

Gavin MC, McCarter J, Mead A et al (2015) Defining biocultural approaches to conservation. Trends Ecol Evol 30(3):140–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2014.12.005

Gavin MC et al (2018) Effective biodiversity conservation requires dynamic, pluralistic, partnership-based approaches. Sustainability 10(6):1846. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10061846

Geyer R, Jambeck JR, Law KL (2017) Production, use, and fate of all plastics ever made. Sci Adv 3(7):e1700782. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1700782

Gillson L, Biggs H, Smit IP et al (2019) Finding common ground between adaptive management and evidence-based approaches to biodiversity conservation. Trends Ecol Evol 34(1):31–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2018.10.003

Gray CL, Hill SLL, Newbold T (2016) Local biodiversity is higher inside than outside terrestrial protected areas worldwide. Nat Commun 7:12306. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms12306

Green RE, Cornell SJ, Scharlemann JPW et al (2005) Farming and the fate of wild nature. Science 307:550–555. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1106049

Hance J (2016) How big donors and corporations shape conservation goals. Mongabay series: evolving conservation. Available via DIALOG. https://news.mongabay.com/2016/05/big-donors-corporations-shape-conservation-goals/ . Accessed 15 out 2019

Hölker F, Wolter C, Perkin EK et al (2010) Light pollution as a biodiversity threat. Trends Ecol Evol 25(12):681–682. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2010.09.007

Holmes G, Sandbrook C, Fisher JA (2016) Understanding conservationists’ perspectives on the new-conservation debate. Conserv Biol 31(2):353–363. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12811

Hunter JR, Malcolm L, Redford KH et al (2014) The complementary niches of anthropocentric and biocentric conservationists. Conserv Biol 28(3):641–645. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12296

IPBES (2019) In: Díaz S, Settele J, Brondizio ES et al (eds) Summary for policymakers of the global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. IPBES Secretariat, Bonn, Germany. https://www.ipbes.net/global-assessment-report-biodiversity-ecosystem-services . Accessed 20 Sep 2019

IPCC (2013) In: Stocker TF, Qin D, Plattner G-K et al (eds) Climate change 2013: the physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/ . Accessed 02 Jan 2019

IPCC (2019) Summary for policymakers. In: Pörtner H-O, Roberts DC, Masson-Delmotte V, Zhai P, Tignor M, Poloczanska E, Mintenbeck K, Nicolai M, Okem A, Petzold J, Rama B, Weyer N (eds) IPCC Special Report on the ocean and cryosphere in a changing climate. In press. https://www.ipcc.ch/srocc/ . Accessed 15 Nov 2019

IUCN (2019) Invasive species. https://www.iucn.org/theme/species/our-work/invasive-species . Accessed 25 Jan 2019

Johnson CN, Balmford A, Brook BW et al (2017) Biodiversity losses and conservation responses in the Anthropocene. Science 356(6335):270–275. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aam9317

Jones KR, Venter O, Fuller RA et al (2018) One-third of global protected land is under intense human pressure. Science 360(6390):788–791. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aap9565

Kareiva P, Marvier M (2012) What is conservation science? Bioscience 62(11):962–969. https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2012.62.11.5

Kareiva P, Marvier M, Lalasz R (2012) Conservation in the anthropocene: beyond solitude and fragility. The Break Through Institute. Available via DIALOG. https://thebreakthrough.org/journal/issue-2/conservation-in-the-anthropocene . Accessed 10 set 2019

Kopnina H (2016) Half the earth for people (or more)? Addressing ethical questions in conservation. Biol Conserv 203:176–185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2016.09.019

Kopnina H, Washington H, Gray J et al (2018) The ‘future of conservation’ debate: defending ecocentrism and the nature needs half movement. Biol Conserv 217:140–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2017.10.016

Kremen C (2015) Reframing the land-sparing/land-sharing debate for biodiversity conservation. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1355(1):52–76. https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.12845

Lamb JB, Willis BL, Fiorenza EA et al (2018) Plastic waste associated with disease on coral reefs. Science 359(6374):460–462. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aar3320

Latorre JG, Latorre JG (2012) Globalization, local communities, and traditional forest-related knowledge. In: Traditional forest-related knowledge. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 449–490

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Leff E (2004) Racionalidad ambiental: la reapropiación social de la naturaleza. Siglo XXI, Buenos Aires, Argentina

Loss SR, Will T, Marra PP (2013) The impact of free-ranging domestic cats on wildlife of the United States. Nat Commun 4:1396. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms2380

Mace GM (2014) Whose conservation? Science 345(6204):1558–1560. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1254704

Maffi L, Dilts O (2014). Biocultural diversity toolkit, vol 1: Introduction to biocultural diversity. Terralingua, Salt Spring Island

Maffi L et al (2007) Biocultural diversity and sustainability. In: The SAGE handbook of environment and society. SLE Pound, London, pp 267–277

Mantyka-pringle CS, Martin TG, Rhodes JR (2012) Interactions between climate and habitat loss effects on biodiversity: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Glob Chang Biol 18(4):1239–1252. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2011.02593.x

Marris ERG (2011) Saving nature in a post-wild world. Bloomsbury, New York

Martínez-Alier J (ed) (2011) El ecologismo de los pobres: conflictos ambientales y lenguajes de valoración, 5rd edn. Icaria, Barcelona, p 416

Maxwell SL, Fuller RA, Brooks TM et al (2016) Biodiversity: the ravages of guns, nets and bulldozers. Nature 536(7615):143–145. https://doi.org/10.1038/536143a

Medina FM, Bonnaud E, Vidal E et al (2011) A global review of the impacts of invasive cats on island endangered vertebrates. Glob Chang Biol 17(11):3503–3510. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2011.02464.x

Meffe GK, Carroll CR (eds) (1997) Principles of conservation biology. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: biodiversity synthesis. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC

Mitra A, Chatterjee C, Mandal FB (2011) Synthetic chemical pesticides and their effects on birds. Res J Environ Toxicol 5(2):81–96. https://doi.org/10.3923/rjet.2011.81.96

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Molnar JL, Gamboa RL, Revenga C et al (2008) Assessing the global threat of invasive species to marine biodiversity. Front Ecol Environ 6(9):485–492. https://doi.org/10.1890/070064

Naeem S, Prager C, Weeks B et al (2016) Biodiversity as a multidimensional construct: a review, framework and case study of herbivory’s impact on plant biodiversity. P R Soc B 283(1844):20153005. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2015.3005

National Academy of Sciences (1988) Biodiversity. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC. https://doi.org/10.17226/989

Book   Google Scholar  

Neubauer P, Jensen OP, Hutchings JA et al (2013) Resilience and recovery of overexploited marine populations. Science 340(6130):347–349. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1230441

Nogales M, Vidal E, Medina FM et al (2013) Feral cats and biodiversity conservation: the urgent prioritization of island management. Bioscience 63(10):804–810. https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2013.63.10.7

Odum EP, Odum HT (1972) Natural areas as necessary components of man’s total environment. Trans North Am Wildl Nat Res Conf 37:178–189

Pan J, Marcoval MA, Bazzini SM et al (2013) Coastal marine biodiversity challenges and threats. In: Arias AH, Menendez MC (eds) Marine ecology in a changing world, 1st edn. CRC Press, New York, pp 43–67

Pearson RG (2016) Reasons to conserve nature. Trends Ecol Evol 31(5):366–371. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2016.02.005

Perfecto I, Vandermeer J, Wright A (2009) Nature’s matrix: linking agriculture, conservation and food sovereignty. Routledge, London

Phalan B (2018) What have we learned from the land sparing-sharing model? Sustainability 10(6):1760. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10061760

Phoenix GK, Hicks WK, Cinderby S et al (2006) Atmospheric nitrogen deposition in world biodiversity hotspots: the need for a greater global perspective in assessing N deposition impacts. Glob Chang Biol 12(3):470–476. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2006.01104.x

Piccolo JJ (2017) Intrinsic values in nature: objective good or simply half of an unhelpful dichotomy? J Nat Conserv 37:8–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnc.2017.02.007

Pimm SL, Jenkins CN, Li BV (2018) How to protect half of Earth to ensure it protects sufficient biodiversity. Sci Adv 4(8):eaat2616. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aat2616

Porto-Gonçalves CW, Leff E (2015) Political ecology in Latin America: the social re-appropriation of nature, the reinvention of territories and the construction of an environmental rationality. Desenv e Meio Ambiente 35(1):65–88. https://doi.org/10.5380/dma.v35i0.43543

Purvis A, Hector A (2000) Getting the measure of biodiversity. Nature 405(6783):212–219. https://doi.org/10.1038/35012221

Rahbek C, Colwell RK (2011) Species loss revisited. Nature 473(7347): 288–289. https://doi.org/10.1038/473288a

Sambrook C, Fisher JA, Holmes G et al (2019) The global conservation movement is diverse but not divided. Nat Sustainability 2(4):316–323. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0267-5

Saura S, Bertzky B, Bastin L et al (2018) Protected area connectivity: shortfalls in global targets and country-level priorities. Biol Conserv 219:53–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2017.12.020

Schlaepfer MA (2018) Do non-native species contribute to biodiversity? PLoS Biol 16(4):e2005568. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.2005568

Sebbenn AM, Degen B, Azevedo VC et al (2008) Modelling the long-term impacts of selective logging on genetic diversity and demographic structure of four tropical tree species in the Amazon forest. For Ecol Manage 254(2):335–349. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2007.08.009

Shoreman-Ouimet E, Kopnina H (2015) Reconciling ecological and social justice to promote biodiversity conservation. Biol Conserv 184:320–326. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2015.01.030

Soulé ME (1985) What is conservation biology? A new synthetic discipline addresses the dynamics and problems of perturbed species, communities, and ecosystems. Bioscience 35(11):727–734. https://doi.org/10.2307/1310054

Soulé M (2014) The “new conservation”. In: Wuerthner G, Crist E, Butler T (eds) Keeping the wild. Island Press, Washington, DC, pp 66–80. https://doi.org/10.5822/978-1-61091-559-5_7

Soulé ME, Wilcox BA (eds) (1980) Conservation biology: an evolutionary- ecological perspective. Sinauer, Sunderland

Spaiser V, Ranganathan S, Swain RB, Sumpter, DJ (2017) The sustainable development oxymoron: quantifying and modelling the incompatibility of sustainable development goals. Int J Sust Dev World Ecol 24(6):457–470. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504509.2016.1235624

Steffen W, Leinfelder R, Zalasiewicz J et al (2016) Stratigraphic and Earth System approaches to defining the Anthropocene. Earth’s Future 4(8):324–345. https://doi.org/10.1002/2016ef000379

Tallis H, Lubchenco J (2014) Working together: a call for inclusive conservation. Nat News 515(7525):27–28. https://doi.org/10.1038/515027a

Thomas CD (2013) The Anthropocene could raise biological diversity. Nature News 502(7469):7–7. https://doi.org/10.1038/502007a

Thurstan RH, Brockington S, Roberts CM (2010) The effects of 118 years of industrial fishing on UK bottom trawl fisheries. Nat Commun 1:15. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms1013

Tscharntke T et al (2012) Global food security, biodiversity conservation and the future of agricultural intensification. Biol Conserv 151(1):53–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2012.01.068

UNEP-WCMC (2018) Protected areas map of the world, April 2018. http://www.protectedplanet.net . Accessed 02 Feb 2019

UNEP-WCMC, IUCN (2019) Marine protected planet, January 2019. http://www.protectedplanet.net . Accessed 01 Feb 2019

Vandermeer J et al (2018) Feeding prometheus: an interdisciplinary approach for solving the global food crisis. Front Sustain Food Syst 2:39. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2018.00039

Vikas M, Dwarakish GS (2015) Coastal pollution: a review. Aquat Procedia 4:381–388. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aqpro.2015.02.051

Waters CN, Zalasiewicz J, Summerhayes C et al (2016) The Anthropocene is functionally and stratigraphically distinct from the Holocene. Science 351(6269):aad2622. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aad2622

Watson R (2017) A database of global marine commercial, small-scale, illegal and unreported fisheries catch 1950–2014. Sci Data 4:170039. https://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2017.39

Watson JEM, Jones JPG (2019) Diverse contributions benefit people and nature. Nat Ecol Evol 3:1140–1141. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-019-0936-9

Watson JE, Darling ES, Venter O et al (2016) Bolder science needed now for protected areas. Conserv Biol 30(2):243–248. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12645

Wilcox C, Van Sebille E, Hardesty BD (2015) Threat of plastic pollution to seabirds is global, pervasive, and increasing. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 112(38):11899–11904. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1502108112

Wilson EO (2016) Half-earth: our planet’s fight for life. WW Norton & Company, New York

Wittman H et al (2017) A social–ecological perspective on harmonizing food security and biodiversity conservation. Reg Environ Chang 17(5):1291–1301. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-016-1045-9

Wood A, Stedman-Edwards P, Mang J (2000) The root causes of biodiversity loss. World Wildlife Fund and Earthscan Publications, Ltd, London, p 304

Woodward G, Gessner MO, Giller PS et al (2012) Continental-scale effects of nutrient pollution on stream ecosystem functioning. Science 336(6087):1438–1440. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1219534

Zalasiewicz J, Waters CN, Wolfe AP et al (2017) Making the case for a formal Anthropocene Epoch: an analysis of ongoing critiques. Newsl Stratigr 50(2):205–226. https://doi.org/10.1127/nos/2017/0385

Download references

Acknowledgments

CB thanks the Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq) for the Productivity Grant Fellowship (Process number 308628/2016-0) and the Universidade Federal Rural do Semi-árido (Edital 19/2018) for financial support. VOL received support from Universidade Federal Rural do Semi-árido (Editais 19/2018; 22/2018; 39/2019).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Departamento de Biociências, Universidade Federal Rural do Semi-Árido, Mossoró, Rio Grande do Norte, Brazil

Cristina Baldauf

Laboratório de Ecologia Evolutiva e Molecular, Centro de Ciências Biológicas e da Saúde, Universidade Federal Rural do Semi-árido, Mossoró, RN, Brazil

Vitor de Oliveira Lunardi

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Cristina Baldauf .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations, rights and permissions.

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter.

Baldauf, C., de Oliveira Lunardi, V. (2020). Multiple Perspectives on Biodiversity Conservation: From Concept to Heated Debate. In: Baldauf, C. (eds) Participatory Biodiversity Conservation. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-41686-7_2

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-41686-7_2

Published : 14 May 2020

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-030-41685-0

Online ISBN : 978-3-030-41686-7

eBook Packages : Biomedical and Life Sciences Biomedical and Life Sciences (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Biodiversity 101: Why it matters and how to protect it

• May 21, 2020

The Earth is undergoing a mass extinction that could see up to a million species disappear in the coming decades – and humans are contributing heavily to this.

The numbers are staggering: the population sizes of vertebrate species, which include mammals, reptiles, birds and fish, dropped by around half between 1970 and 2010 . A quarter of mammals, 40 percent of amphibians, and 30 percent of sharks and rays are currently endangered .

During the 20th century, extinction rates were about 100 times higher than they would have been without humans significantly altering most of the planet’s surface .

What does this loss of biodiversity mean for the future of the planet and its inhabitants – and what can we do about it? The first step is understanding the basics, unraveled in easy-to-digest terms here in this explainer:

What is biodiversity?

How is biodiversity measured, what are the benefits of biodiversity, what are the main threats to biodiversity, how can we protect biodiversity.

Coined by biologists in the 1980s as a contraction of biological diversity , the term usually refers to the variety of life on Earth as a whole . The U.N. Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) breaks it down as follows :

“Biological diversity” means 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.

But the CBD makes it clear that measuring biodiversity is no simple feat:

This includes diversity within species, between species and of ecosystems.

Let’s start with biodiversity between species, or species diversity . Arguably the simplest measure is ‘species richness’ – a count of how many species live in a community.

But species richness does not consider the relative abundance of each species, or its importance to an ecosystem or landscape, or its value to people. As such, biologists have invented diversity indices, such as the Simpson index and the Shannon index , to take these factors into account.

When talking about biodiversity loss, we often focus on losses in species diversity, as it is crucial to maintain the balance of ecosystems, nutritional value of food, and enhance resilience of ecosystems and landscapes to the threats of climate change and other risks like weeds and pests.

Yet genetic diversity – the characteristics of a species’ genetic makeup – is equally important, as it ensures resilience to change and stressors on a more individual level.

Consider the following analogy: in investing, a diversified portfolio minimizes risk and usually provides the most reliable returns. Likewise, genetic diversity protects a species from being wiped out by an external shock like a natural disaster or disease outbreak.

At the largest scale is the concept of ecosystem diversity , which measures how many different ecosystems exist within a geographical area or wider landscape. The more ecosystems exist within a landscape, the more resilient that landscape is, and the more services it has to offer its inhabitants. 

These include wetlands , which contain over 40 percent of the value of the world’s ecosystems ; peatlands , which store a third of the planet’s soil carbon; and lesser-known tropical forests such as monsoon and karst forests , which are among our best natural defenses against climate change.

You might have also heard of ‘biodiversity hotspots.’ These are landscapes with exceptionally high concentrations of biodiversity. 43 percent of bird, mammal, reptile and amphibian species are only found in areas that make up just 2.4 percent of the Earth’s surface .

Healthy and functional ecosystems play a crucial role in sustaining human livelihoods through providing necessities and benefits such as food, water, energy sources and carbon sequestration, known as ‘ecosystem services.’

One study estimates that each year, the goods and services provided by the planet’s ecosystems contribute over USD 100 trillion to the global economy , more than double the world’s gross domestic product (GDP). But much debate remains over how to factor in non-monetary values, such as natural beauty, regulating functions, and providing homes for humans and animals.

Underpinning ecosystem services are genetic diversity and biodiversity. Genetic diversity supports agriculture by building resilience and protecting against environmental stresses such as pests, crop diseases and natural disasters . This provides a source of income and safeguards the food security of much of the world’s poor.

Biodiversity also plays a role in some ‘ nature-based solutions ’ to climate change and problems caused by changes in the environment. These solutions could provide up to a third of the carbon emissions reductions needed to meet the Paris Agreement goals .

Including biodiversity in nature-based solutions, though, must be a conscious choice. Tree planting , for instance, can come in the form of monocultures (planting just a single species in a landscape) or agroforestry, which mixes species of agricultural crops and trees in a single landscape to enhance the sustainability of both.

While each of these cases offers a different set of financial and environmental benefits, most experts will sing the praises of nature-based solutions that take into account biodiversity over those that don’t.

And, let us not forget: the planet’s various ecosystems and landscapes also hold considerable intrinsic value to humans, whether for their recreational opportunities, their cultural importance to Indigenous communities , or their contributions to physical and mental health . Without biodiversity, these values will be lost.

In a seminal report published last year, the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) identified five direct drivers of biodiversity loss: changes in land and sea use, overexploitation, climate change, pollution, and invasive species.

These five drivers, it argues , are in turn driven by increasing demand for natural resources, as well as governance structures that prioritize economic growth over conservation and restoration.

Land and sea use

The most widespread form of land-use change has been the expansion of agriculture : according to the IPBES report, over a third of the Earth’s land surface is now used for cropping or livestock, mainly at the expense of forests , wetlands and grasslands.

The tropics , which are home to the highest levels of biodiversity on Earth, are now seeing their ecosystems replaced by cattle ranching in Latin America and plantations in Southeast Asia .

Other key land-use changes include logging, mining and urbanization. Coastal and marine ecosystems have also been significantly affected by activities such as offshore aquaculture, bottom trawling, coastal development and ocean mining .

Overexploitation

The IPBES suggests that fishing has had a larger impact on marine ecosystems than any other human activity: 33 percent of marine fish stocks are currently overfished, and 60 percent are being fished to their sustainable limits. Poaching and hunting , too, are driving many mammals to the brink of extinction.

Climate change

Humans have caused the planet to warm by around 1 degree Celsius since pre-industrial times – and biodiversity is already bearing the brunt of that warming. Climate change is reducing the distribution of many species (the geographical area in which they can survive), including almost half of all endangered mammals.

Changes in the ecological balance can also result in species that can beneficial turning into pests and plagues once their natural enemies are reduced or disappear: think locusts, mosquitos, algae.

Many plants and animals are also experiencing disruptions to their phenology , which refers to seasonal life cycle events such as flowering, migration and hibernation.

Mining, agriculture, industry and other pervasive changes in human’s land-use are contributing to air, water and soil pollution. The IPBES notes that coastal waters contain the highest levels of metals and organic pollutants, such as industrial discharge and fertilizers.

Similarly, marine plastic pollution has increased tenfold since 1980, primarily affecting marine turtles, seabirds and marine mammals, as well as humans indirectly through the food chain.

Invasive species

An invasive alien species is a species that has been introduced to a new location and starts to disrupt its new habitat. These species can threaten native biodiversity by out-competing them for resources, and they’re spreading ever more quickly as international travel and trade expands. A recent study found that one-sixth of the Earth’s land surface is highly vulnerable to invasion , including many biodiversity hotspots.

Humanity’s ecological footprint is about 70 percent larger than the planet can sustain – and in the world’s richest countries, that figure is as much as four or five times larger. Given these huge inequalities in both living standards and ecological impact, residents of industrialized nations can – and should – do their part to preserve biodiversity by helping contribute to more sustainable global systems.

At the individual level, that could include reducing air travel, buying organic , eating less red meat, avoiding fast fashion , and turning your backyard into a carbon sink .

At the international and policy level , we need commitments to restore the Earth’s ecosystems , following the examples set by the Everglades and farmers in the African Sahel .

Indigenous and local communities are deep and rich sources of traditional knowledge of how best to care for increasingly fragile landscapes. Technological innovation is a crucial tool too.

And with biodiversity worth more in monetary terms than the entire global economy , there’s a clear business case to be made for investing in restoring the planet .

BE PART OF THE MOVEMENT

…thank you for reading this story. Our mission is to make them freely accessible to everyone, no matter where they are. 

We believe that lasting and impactful change starts with changing the way people think. That’s why we amplify the diverse voices the world needs to hear – from local restoration leaders to Indigenous communities and women who lead the way.

By supporting us, not only are you supporting the world’s largest knowledge-led platform devoted to sustainable and inclusive landscapes, but you’re also becoming a vital part of a global movement that’s working tirelessly to create a healthier world for us all.

Every donation counts – no matter the amount. Thank you for being a part of our mission.

Related articles

How to nurture tomorrow’s ocean stewards.

• March 28, 2024

These locked-down housemates found over 1,000 species in their backyard

• March 27, 2024

Impact finance is ripe for its next phase: Democratization

• March 25, 2024

What’s happening with deforestation in the Amazon?

In Borneo, a local community brings back its mangroves

Smart sea sponges, plastic-eating proteins and the great Anthropocene argument

ThinkLandscape is a multimedia platform bringing you original, knowledge-backed news and feature stories about climate and landscape solutions from around the world.

Be part of the change. 

Connect with us..

• Privacy policy and terms of use
• Global Landscapes Forum (GLF)

• Table of Contents
• Random Entry
• Chronological
• Editorial Information
• About the SEP
• Editorial Board
• How to Cite the SEP
• Special Characters
• Advanced Tools
• Support the SEP
• PDFs for SEP Friends
• Make a Donation
• SEPIA for Libraries
• Entry Contents

Bibliography

Academic tools.

• Friends PDF Preview
• Author and Citation Info
• Back to Top

Biodiversity

The term “biodiversity” is a contraction of “biological diversity” or “biotic diversity”. These terms all refer to the idea of living variation, from genes and traits, to species, and to ecosystems. The popular contraction “biodiversity” came about in the mid-1980s, heralded by a symposium in 1986 and an influential follow-up book, Biodiversity (Wilson 1988). These events often are interpreted as the beginning of the biodiversity story, but this mid-1980s activity actually was both a nod to important past work, and a launching of something quite new, in ways not fully anticipated.

The new term “biodiversity” energised some fundamental ideas developed over the previous decade (or longer). Precursor terms like “biotic diversity” had helped to communicate why we should be concerned about the loss of variety, arising from the species extinction crisis (later, the “biodiversity crisis”). This recognised the idea that living variation itself has current value, because it provides the opportunity for future benefits for humanity. The International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN 1980) summarised these early ideas about variety as providing both “insurance” and “investment” benefits. The focus on the variety of life was echoed later in the Convention on Biological Diversity’s (CBD) definition of “biodiversity”, and in the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). The IPBES conceptual framework, describing “nature’s contributions to people” (Díaz et al. 2018), includes the maintenance of options for future generations that is provided by biodiversity as variety (see Faith forthcoming). This value of living variation complements recognised values of individual species, and it accords with the idea that “biodiversity” may refer both to the collection of individual species (or other units), and to amount-of-variation as a property of that collection.

The new term “biodiversity” also catalysed fresh new perspectives, with an explosion of academic and philosophical discussions, evidenced by the many post-1985 published papers having the key term “biodiversity”. Over this period, the term “biodiversity” often has reflected a range of different disciplinary perspectives (ecology, systematics, economics, social sciences, etc.). The range of conceptual issues addressed are reflected in recent books on the philosophy of biodiversity, including What is Biodiversity? (Maclaurin & Sterelny 2008), Biodiversity and Environmental Philosophy (Sarkar 2005), Routledge Handbook of Philosophy of Biodiversity (Garson, Plutynski, & Sarkar eds. 2017), Philosophy and Biodiversity (Oksanen & Pietarinen eds. 2004), and From Assessing to Conserving Biodiversity (Casetta, da Silva, & Vecchie eds. 2019) (see also the Related Entries section).

While the policy context for conservation of biodiversity has maintained a core focus on variety (as reflected in the CBD and IPBES definitions), the more academic discussions are harder to pin down. Philosophical discussions about “biodiversity” illustrate the current lack of academic consensus on fundamental issues, including biodiversity’s definition, its value, and even its history. Increased popularity of the term among academics has amounted to decreased clarity of the term. If we look under “Definition of biodiversity” in the Encyclopedia of Biodiversity , we find that “An unequivocal, precise, and generally accepted definition of biodiversity does not exist” (Swingland 2013). The recent book, Defending Biodiversity (Newman, Varner, & Linquist 2017) has the premise that it will be impossible to ever settle on a definition. This entry therefore will focus on these fundamental issues concerning biodiversity’s definitions and values. The particular focus is on the concept of variety (rather than the definition and value of individual elements such as species). Other biodiversity-related philosophical issues are covered in other SEP entries (see the supplementary document on biodiversity preservation in the entry on environmental ethics , and the entries on conservation biology and on ecology ).

1.1 Multiple benefits of biotic diversity: insurance and investment

2.1 further exploration of biodiversity option value, 2.2 variety, value and normativity, 2.3 what do we mean by “variety” or “diversity” and how do we measure it, 2.4 how understanding variety helps us build a working calculus of biodiversity, 3. beyond variety—post 1985 new “biodiversity” framings, 4.1 further exploration of biodiversity insurance value, 4.2 the rationale for the ecosystems framing, 4.3 definitions and values, 4.4 history, 4.5 concluding observations, 5.1 introduction, 5.2 biodiversity deflationism, 5.3 biodiversity eliminativism, 5.4 concluding observations, 6. socio-ecological framing, 7. concluding observations, other internet resources, related entries, 1. pre-history of “biodiversity”: variety and its values.

The term “biodiversity” was coined around 1985, but the conceptual, and political, foundations for the new term were developed over at least the previous decade. The link between biotic diversity and human well-being is clear in the “pre-history” of the term “biodiversity” (roughly, the history of the term before it was invented). Much of the early work recognising a species extinction crisis naturally focussed on the values of individual species to humanity, in addition to their intrinsic value (for reviews, see Farnham 2007; Mazur & Lee 1993). Discussions by Myers (1976) and others broadened this focus to include a concern about the consequent overall loss of variety, and why such a loss of variety itself matters to humanity. Haskins (1974: 646) summarised an important discussion meeting where participants called for

an Ethic of Biotic Diversity in which such diversity is viewed as a value in itself and is tied in with the survival and fitness of the human race.

Haskins (1974: 646) argued, “Plants and animals that may now be regarded as dispensable may one day emerge as valuable resources” and that extinction “threatens to narrow down future choices for mankind” (see also Anonymous 1974). Similarly, Roush (1977: 9) argued that “diversity increases the possibility of future benefits” (for review, see Farnham 2007).

Myers (1976) arguments for a greater focus on the overall loss of variety appeared in his paper, “An Expanded Approach to the Problem of Disappearing Species”. He argued that

…the spectrum of species can be reckoned a repository of some of society’s most valuable raw materials. Moreover, loss of species will affect generations into the indefinite future, whose options to utilize species in ways yet undetermined should be kept open. (see also Josephson 1982)

Myers and Ayensu (1983) similarly argued that the possible discovery of benefits for humans is a primary justification for conservation of biological diversity (see also Myers’ 1979 book, The Sinking Ark ).

This pre-history considered variety at more than the species level. Farnham (2017) provides a useful historical perspective, describing how the standard three levels of variation later recognised by the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)—genes, species, and ecosystems—became established early as parts of our broader concern about the loss of living variation. He describes this as a convergence of separate concerns about species loss, loss of genetic variety, and the disappearance of ecosystem types. Other support for this convergence is found in early work referring to the variety of biomes or ecosystems as capturing variety at the species level. For example, Ehrenfeld (1970) referred to the potential but unknown uses of species and suggested conserving the full variety of ecosystems to capture these future options (arguing that every ecosystem is likely to have some useful species). Back in 1972, the botanist, H. H. Iltis, argued that we must “preserve sufficient diversity of species and of ecosystems” because “we will never reach a point where we shall know which organisms are going to be of value to man and which are not” (Iltis 1972: 204). Ehrenfeld referred to the need globally to conserve a representative set of the different ecosystems (see also Roush 1977). Echoing these concerns, Wilson (1984) later lamented the lack of representativeness of the variety of ecosystems in the current protected areas system.

Thus, while important early discussion (Lovejoy 1980) linked “biological diversity” to species richness, the full spectrum of the early work reveals precedents for considering multiple levels—all with conceptual links to the species extinction crisis.

Those bits of pre-history clearly articulate the idea that variety itself is important because it maintains future options for humanity. However, this early work did not establish any consistent terminology to describe this. Later work (see below) uses terms like biodiversity “option value” (a term used in other ways in economics) and “maintenance of options” (a term that includes other contributions from nature, not just those from variety/biodiversity).

Back in 1980, the IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature) reflected on this earlier work, and offered some distinctions that are still useful in philosophical discussions about biodiversity definitions and values. IUCN’s (1980: section 3) arguments for the conservation of diversity (referring to “the range of genetic material found in the world’s organisms”) echoed earlier statements about variety and future options:

we may learn that many species that seem dispensable are capable of providing important products, such as pharmaceuticals….

Importantly, IUCN also echoed other early work, in adding a critical second part to that sentence: “…or are vital parts of life-support systems on which we depend” (IUCN 1980: section 3). IUCN provided terms for these two ways in which variety itself benefits humanity:

preservation of genetic diversity (their stand-in for the not-yet-defined “biodiversity”) is both a matter of insurance and investment to keep open future options. (IUCN 1980: section 3)

It is informative to trace this insurance and investment duality in the pre-history of “biodiversity”. Roush (1977) listed four reasons for preserving “natural diversity”. In addition to the relational values concerning “human delight” and ethics, his reasons included not only the idea that “diversity increases the possibility of future benefits” but also that diversity supports stability of the “life support system”.

Holdren and Ehrlich (1974) argued that loss of a species or loss of genetic diversity can mean loss of potential uses (medicines, foods etc.), but also referred to the maintenance of the “public service” functions of natural ecosystems. Ehrenfeld (1970) similarly distinguished between the within ecosystem functioning/stability argument and the potential uses or option value argument. Ehrlich and Ehrlich (1981), in their book Extinction discussed the insurance value of the Earth’s “biological diversity” through the analogy of popping rivets off an airplane wing—we strive to keep all the rivets, because we do not know how many could be lost before the wing no longer functions.

This pre-history of “biodiversity” thus considered multiple values for humanity from living variation itself, building on the even-longer history of basic awareness that there lots of kinds of things (e.g., species; for review, see Oksanen 2004). This argumentation also added to discussions that had considered attribution of “intrinsic value” to variety of life (see the supplement on biodiversity preservation in the entry on environmental ethics, for discussion of intrinsic value.

2. Later Work on Variety, Its Value, and the Question of Normativity

The new term “biodiversity”, post-1985, marked fresh perspectives about what variety or “diversity” might mean, and what the benefits and values of biodiversity might be. There also was a continuation and further development of the core perspectives on value established during the pre-history. Wilson (1985) made the case for a “biological diversity crisis” by arguing that this means the loss of potential uses, yet to be discovered. Wilson also echoed Myers and Ayensu (1983) and others arguing for the importance of systematics and the need for discovery of species to address knowledge gaps. Later, Wilson (1988) brought these arguments together, arguing that the new term “biodiversity” reflects our lack of knowledge about the components of life’s variation and their importance to humankind.

The pre-history perspectives, in the writings of Myers and others, influenced the Brundtland Report, a landmark United Nations report on sustainable development (WCED 1987). This report contains the much-quoted definition:

Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.

This is followed by a key requirement:

The loss of plant and animal species can greatly limit the options of future generations; so sustainable development requires the conservation of plant and animal species.

The report’s call for governments to form a “species convention” helped catalyse the creation of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD; see below).

These perspectives foreshadow later discussion themes, including: further exploration of biodiversity option value (including the question of normativity); analysis of what we mean by “variety” and how we measure it; and further exploration of the “insurance” aspect of biodiversity value (setting the stage for a multitude of ecological interpretations of “biodiversity”).

Post 1985, the new term “biodiversity” was central to perspectives on the value of living variation. McNeely (1988) and Reid and Miller (1989) highlighted option values of biodiversity (see also Norton 1986). Later, a landmark global report, the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005: 32), summarised twenty-plus years of “biodiversity” conservation, concluding that

the value individuals place on keeping biodiversity for future generations—the option value—can be significant.

Another decade later, Gascon et al. (2015) reviewed the many, often surprising, benefits of species to argue for the importance of biodiversity option value. Gascon et al. also echoed the earlier proposals that “phylogenetic diversity”, a measure of biodiversity based on the tree of life, is a natural way to measure this option value (see section below).

Around that time, the Papal Encyclical Letter “On Care for Our Common Home” (Francis 2015) addressed the loss of biodiversity, arguing for the importance of not only intrinsic values of species but also the option values of biodiversity:

The loss of forests and woodlands entails the loss of species which may constitute extremely important resources in the future, not only for food but also for curing disease and other uses. Different species contain genes which could be key resources in years ahead for meeting human needs and regulating environmental problems. (2015: 32)

These arguments referring to surprising benefits from individual species sometimes have not make it clear whether such values are being considered for individual species (only), or for variety itself. The IPBES Conceptual Framework (Díaz et al. 2015: 14) refers to

the “option values of biodiversity”, that is, the value of maintaining living variation in order to provide possible future uses and benefits.

However, later IPBES discussions of “nature’s contributions to people” use related terms in a more general way. Here, Díaz et al. (2018: Table S1) describe “maintenance of options” as the “Capacity of ecosystems, habitats, species or genotypes to keep options open in order to support a good quality of life”. This broad statement seems to cover both individual elements and variety itself.

Bartkowski (2019) in his “Valuation of Biodiversity” review, notes that perspectives about economic values of “biodiversity” typically have focussed on individual elements, with the less-attention to the values of variety, including both option and insurance values. This concern echoes earlier debates that have examined whether option value applies to biodiversity-as-variety, and not just to specific elements. Consideration of the potential future benefits from individual species can be interpreted as implying a value for variety (Maclaurin & Sterelny 2008: 154):

The crucial point about option value is that it makes diversity valuable. As we do not know in advance which species will prove to be important, we should try to conserve as rich and representative a sample as possible.

Maier (2012), in his book, What’s So Good About Biodiversity? , criticised Maclaurin and Sterelny’s arguments for biodiversity’s option value. However, this critique may reflect simply a focus on individual elements rather than variety itself. Maier interpreted “option value” as applying, in accord with economics usage, to a given element, resource, or ecosystem service. Any quantification of value, Maier argued, would require estimates of reliability of stock, risk aversion, and willingness to pay—all missing in Maclaurin and Sterelny’s arguments. These views are partly reconciled by recognising that reference to “option value of biodiversity” is a current value of variety itself, and does not have to be interpreted to mean that the actual value of the future benefits is determined. This difference in perspectives also has played a role in debates about whether biodiversity option value has normative standing.

Biodiversity as variety provides option/investment and insurance benefits to humanity, but this leaves open the question as to the nature of the value of such benefits. Haskins (1974) had called for “an Ethic of Biotic Diversity”, in which variety’s benefit has ethical import because we care about the well-being of future generations. Similarly, when IUCN (1980: Section 3) reviewed the arguments for the conservation of biotic diversity, they linked this to moral principles:

The issue of moral principle relates particularly to species extinction, and may be stated as follows. Human beings have become a major evolutionary force. While lacking the knowledge to control the biosphere, we have the power to change it radically. We are morally obliged-to our descendants and to other creatures-to act prudently… We cannot predict what species may become useful to us. Indeed we may learn that many species that seem dispensable are capable of providing important products, such as pharmaceuticals, or are vital parts of life-support systems on which we depend. For reasons of ethics and self-interest, therefore, we should not knowingly cause the extinction of a species.

This early discussion, linking biodiversity’s option value to ethical/moral obligations to future generations, anticipated the rationale for the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). Schroeder and Pisupati (2010: 9) in “Ethics, Justice, and the Convention on Biological Diversity”, note that the CBD statements on conservation of biodiversity include consideration of intergenerational justice:

The first CBD objective, the conservation of biodiversity, is an urgent act of attaining intergenerational justice; an act that requires sustained, engaged international collaboration. To deplete the planet of essential resources and leave to future generations a world which severely limits their options, is unjust.

In this context, biodiversity is valued (now) because we care about the welfare of future generations; thus, we see a current benefit, and a link to justice, in biodiversity’s maintenance of options for future generations. This is seen as a kind of relational value, relating the present generation to future generations (Faith 2017: 76):

the best argument for what we call the option value of biodiversity is that we see many currently beneficial units, and maintaining a large number of units (biodiversity) for the future will help maintain a steady flow of such beneficial units… Biodiversity option value therefore links “variation” and “value”: providing a fundamental relational value of biodiversity reflecting our degree of concern about benefits for future generations

Intergenerational justice or equity is linked to both investment/options and insurance (Bartkowski 2017: 53):

…the two perspectives—insurance and options—are inherently interlinked; however, they depend on different types of uncertainty (supply vs. demand), which makes the differentiation sensible. The view of biodiversity as carrier of option value stems from the recognition that a biodiverse ecosystem, which contains many different species and genomes, can best accommodate unanticipated future desires (preferences). As in the case of insurance value, this can be coupled with considerations of intergenerational equity. In fact, in the case of option value, this notion is arguably more central: high levels of biodiversity now mean many different options for our descendants.

An important consideration in recognising an ethical/moral/justice imperative to conserve biodiversity is the recognition that biodiversity, as variety, has a current benefit/value because of that relational link between generations. However, other framings omit this idea of a current benefit from variety itself. For example, Binder and Polasky (2013), in the Encyclopedia of Biodiversity , list ways that biodiversity links to human well-being.

Biodiversity contributes to human well-being directly through provision of foods, fuels, and fibers, and indirectly through its role in enhancing ecosystem functions that lead to the provision of ecosystem services.

This might seem to capture biodiversity option value in referring to foods and other goods, but in fact leaves out the idea that society sees biodiversity and the prospect for discoveries for future generations as a current contribution to well-being. The well-being is not just that realised when the new product is discovered.

Such a restricted interpretation can mean that the maintenance of options provided by biodiversity fails to enter into assessments. For example, Brauman et al. (2020) set out to assess the current global status of nature’s contributions to people, but explicitly chose not to assess maintenance of options—arguing that this is a contribution to well-being only through its support of the well-being obtained from other contributions of nature. In contrast, the IPBES global assessment (IPBES 2019) did assess global status of maintenance of options, noting that, even when considering other specific nature contributions, such as medicinal resources, biodiversity’s maintenance of options is a current benefit in promising possible future medicinal benefits (see also “Phylogenetic diversity and IPBES” in Other Internet Resources).

Absence of recognition of the current benefit of biodiversity’s maintenance of options has other implications. Maier’s (2018) arguments that biodiversity option value has no normative standing are based on an assessment of variety as a future, not current, benefit. An alternative argument, supporting normative standing, focuses on biodiversity-as-variety as a current benefit, because this variety is recognised as maintaining options for future generations. This current value links to normativity—we ought to act to conserve biodiversity and its maintenance of options because it is the right thing to do, given that we care about, and have some relational moral obligation to future generations (Faith 2018a). These discussions highlight the idea that both “current benefit” and “future benefit” are relevant to biodiversity option value. Biodiversity is a benefit currently because it offers unanticipated future benefits, and given the relational sense of obligation to future generations is a basis for normativity.

Another entry in the Encyclopedia of Biodiversity , Chan and Satterfield’s (2013) “Justice, Equity and Biodiversity”, supports this idea, in linking biodiversity conservation to justice for future generations. However, “biodiversity” is left undefined, and seen as something that exists within ecosystems that maintains ecosystems services for future generations. The focus on ecosystem services (where “biodiversity” often has ecological interpretations; see section below) means that the value of variety itself is left unstated by the authors.

Some perspectives give less emphasis to the idea of variety and its benefit/value, and in these, the arguments for a normative status for “biodiversity” appear to be weaker. For example, Koricheva and Siipi (2004: 46) see only intrinsic value as a pathway for moral obligation to (overall) biodiversity:

If biodiversity is found to be intrinsically valuable, we have strong moral reasons to conserve all aspects of biodiversity, regardless of their potential utilitarian and instrumental values. If, conversely, biodiversity is found to be only instrumentally valuable, then on moral grounds we can demand conservation only of those parts which (directly or indirectly) enhance (or will in the future enhance) the well-being or quality of some other valuable entity or state of affairs.

Given this perspective, they conclude that: “conservationists are burdened with the need to find or create instrumental values for each biodiversity element”. Similarly, in “The Moral Value of Biodiversity”, Oksanen (1997) concludes that “It is not the thing ‘biodiversity’ that is of ultimate moral value, but its various constituents”. Thus, this argumentation seems to be disconnected from the idea that, collectively, all of the “elements” or “constituents”—the variety—delivers biodiversity option value and justice for future generations.

Significantly, the popular instrumental-versus-intrinsic argumentation has sometimes meant a neglect of biodiversity option value. [ 1 ] Commonly, the instrumental value of biodiversity is characterised as all about supporting of functions/resilience within ecosystems, not global option values. Some literature suggests that relational values importantly move beyond the standard instrumental-versus-intrinsic framework (e.g., Himes & Muraca 2018). In the context of biodiversity option value, greater appreciation of relational values in fact restores a link to biodiversity value that has been obscured by the popular instrumental-versus-intrinsic argumentation.

The link to variety, as compared to individual elements and/or other ecosystem/ecological aspects, is an issue in other discussions. Eser et al. (2014) acknowledge a normative content for biodiversity, and consider it as arising from the politics at that time (“the making of the term ‘biodiversity’ indicates that the concept is morally impregnated”, 2014: 38). They argue that

the Convention on Biological Diversity, not only addresses issues of conservation, but also sustainable use and fair sharing of benefits. This triad of objectives reflects the three dimensions of sustainable development: ecology, economy and society. (2014: 38)

This equation may imply that the justice/normativity link is to be interpreted as depending on the “fair sharing of benefits”. This fair sharing of benefits often is played out locally, while the conservation of biodiversity is more a global CBD issue. Thus, there does not seem to be a tight fit between Eser et al.’s historical perspective, tied to the origins of the term “biodiversity”, and the deeper historical perspective of ethical arguments for the conservation of biotic diversity. Indeed, Eser et al. do not provide any explicit analysis of the benefits and value of biodiversity-as-variety. Instead, they see the wide range of notions of “biodiversity” as quite useful in providing a “boundary” object that can embrace lots of meanings and perspectives about value. A similar perspective is found in a proposed “weak deflationism” for biodiversity (see below), where what is regarded as “biodiversity” is the outcome of “normative discussion of what merits conservation”.

Eser et al.’s arguments nevertheless are compatible with the early ideas, going back to Haskins and others, of a normative reason to protect biodiversity-as-variety for future generations. Significantly, Eser et al. (2014: 94) argue that:

consideration of the needs of future generations does not count as “nice to have” but is considered a “must”. Finding the appropriate balance between obligations to current and future generations is one of the main challenges of global change ethics.

Eser et al. conclude (2014: 95)

the moral belief that our dealing with the needs of future generations is a matter of Justice is so widespread that it can almost count as a truism. To substantiate biodiversity strategies with the rights of future generations therefore is a promising strategy because it meets the intuitions of so many people.

During the pre-history of “biodiversity”, the species extinction crisis provided motivation to consider the value of living variation, covering not only species richness but also genetic variation and the variety of ecosystems. The new term “biodiversity” introduced fresh considerations, particularly reflecting ecology and ecosystems perspectives. The CBD definition of “biodiversity” used two terms, “variability” and “diversity”, that have invited multiple interpretations:

… 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.

The definition of “biodiversity” in the IPBES Glossary (see the link in Other Internet Resources ) partly follows that of the CBD:

The variability among living organisms from all sources including terrestrial, marine and other aquatic ecosystems and the ecological complexes of which they are a part. This includes variation in genetic, phenotypic, phylogenetic, and functional attributes, as well as changes in abundance and distribution over time and space within and among species, biological communities and ecosystems.

The vague open-ended term “diversity”, in the CBD definition, can be interpreted as any of a number of ecological diversity indices (see below). In contrast, IPBES reflects pre-history in shifting to the word, “variation”. Naturally, this word has provided its own interpretation challenges, including how to characterise it consistently across different levels of variation. Weitzman (1992) presented an influential general framework for biodiversity as variation, based on the idea of objects, and measures of difference between objects. Biodiversity (amount of variation) then depends not only on the number of objects, but also the degree of differences among them. In the book Philosophy and Biodiversity , the link between “biodiversity” and investment and insurance value is described as depending on: “The higher the number and the degree of difference between biological elements” (Koricheva & Siipi 2004: 39). Weikard (2002) argued that any operational concept of biodiversity must have some measure of difference between objects (see also Maclaurin & Sterelny 2008; Morgan 2009).

This strategy assumes that we can define meaningful differences among the initial objects, and also sort out the trade-off between having more objects versus bigger differences. One difficulty is that there are many ways to define “differences”. Morgan (2009) concluded that, even if one has some agreed natural measure of differences, we do not know how to trade off more objects for less differences (or vice versa) to assess biodiversity.

An alternative general framework, proposed by Faith (1994), avoids weaknesses of the objects-differences strategy. The framework side-steps the idea of differences and instead uses the inferred relative number of biodiversity “units” among any given set of “objects”. If “biodiversity” is variation or variety in the sense of units (such as species) that we ideally count-up, then what are those units or elements that make-up biodiversity? The units of interest logically cover more than just the species level (and even the core idea of “species” may consider alternative classifications, such as those in folk cultures; Oksanen 2004). Maclaurin and Sterelny’s argument (2008: 154) that option value “links variation and value” considered option value for units across all levels of biodiversity.

A common assessment of biodiversity-as-variety evaluates a set of protected areas and asks “how many different species are represented by that set of areas?” In the general framework, this converts to a more general biodiversity question: “how many different units are represented by that set of objects?” Thus, “species” corresponds to just one kind of “unit” of variation (with different species as different “units”), and areas are just one kind of “objects”. Biodiversity assessment considers a wide range of these possible objects for decision-making—not just areas, but also species, populations, and other entities. Biodiversity therefore can be quantified in general as a count of the number of different units represented by a given set of objects. Examples of other objects/units combinations include species/traits (or features) and species’ populations/genetic variants.

A strength of the framework is that it addresses the fact that many of the “units” are unknown, and so, cannot simply be counted-up. Many species are still unknown to science; many features of species are undescribed. We may directly observe some objects (say, species) and want to quantify the relative number of un-observed units (say, features) that are represented by those objects. The relative number of units for any object or set of objects therefore has to be estimated through the use of an inferential model or a surrogate of some kind.

A model that successfully reflects the underlying processes that determine the distribution of units among objects (a pattern—process model) may tell us enough about the relationships among the objects to enable inference of relative numbers of units represented by any set of those objects. This is the rationale for a general framework for using pattern to quantify diversity at a level below that of the original objects.

Thus, relationships among different objects ) informs us about what is of interest: the amount of biodiversity, expressed as the number of units represented by those objects. This “counting-up” of the lower-level units means that we can compare different sets of objects by the count of the number of different units represented, and look at useful information such as gains and losses as the set changes.

Suppose, for example, that the units of interest are features of species (a feature might be some morphological characteristic). These features in general have unknown future benefits; feature diversity provides another example of biodiversity option value. If we apply the rationale that all these features should be treated as units of equal value, then some species (those that are phylogenetically distinctive; see below) will make larger contributions to the overall feature diversity represented by a set of species. Thus, equal value at the fine scale among features leads to differential values at the coarse scale among species.

Feature diversity raises measurement challenges. Not only do we not know, in general, the future value of different features, but also we cannot even list the features for most species. Phylogenetic pattern provides one way to estimate and quantify variation at the feature level. The predicted total feature diversity of a set of species is referred to as its “phylogenetic diversity” (PD). The amount of PD, and the estimated relative feature diversity, of a set of species is calculated as the minimum total length of all the phylogenetic branches required to connect all the species in that set on the phylogenetic tree (Faith 1992). This definition follows from an evolutionary model in which branch lengths reflect evolutionary changes (new features), and shared ancestry accounts for shared features among species. Note that a set of three species may have lower PD (lower feature diversity) than a set of two species (see figure below).

The phylogenetic diversity measure illustrates how the pattern—process framework differs from the objects and differences approach. For PD, the objects are species (or other taxa) and the units that we would like to count-up are features (or characters). The use of phylogeny (the “tree of life”) to make inferences about the relative feature diversity of different sets of species is a way to overcome our lack of knowledge about all the features of different species. Maclaurin and Sterelny (2008: 20) incorrectly interpreted PD as an application of the objects and differences approach, with species as objects and differences given by “genealogical depth”. Instead, a pattern (phylogeny) among the species is used. This pattern allows inferences about the biodiversity units of interest—here, features or characters of species.

Figure. A general biodiversity model linking relationships among objects to measures of biodiversity based on the indirect counting-up of units. In each case, relationships among the three objects represented by solid dots provides information about their representation, as a set, of underlying units. The ovals highlight the idea that their degree of similarity within the pattern indicates degree of shared units.

for phylogenetic diversity, the objects are species, the units are evolutionary features and the phylogenetic/feature diversity of the 3 (solid dots) species is indicated by the summed lengths of the blue branches on the phylogenetic tree. Note that this set of 3 species has greater phylogenetic diversity / feature diversity than the set of two hollow-dot species (red branches). [An extended description of figure (a) is in the supplement.]

another kind of pattern for species-as-objects is a Euclidean space representing key environmental gradients. The inferred biodiversity may be functional trait diversity. [An extended description of figure (b) is in the supplement.]

Sarkar’s (2014: 3) consideration of “units” other than species appears compatible with the general pattern–process framework. However, Sarkar’s proposal differs in integrating other additional calculations into the quantification of biodiversity. For example, Sarkar proposed that biodiversity must include a number of aspects beyond richness. At the species-level, Sarkar (2014: 3) argued that a measure of biodiversity should reflect complementarity, rarity, endemism and also “equitability” (reflecting relative abundances). Another aspect to be included was “disparity” reflecting taxonomic distance between species. Sarkar’s consideration of a taxonomic measure of difference between species as part of “biodiversity” echoes the popular objects and differences strategy.

Possible proposals to include aspects beyond richness (counting units) seem limitless. This problem highlights the advantages of a simpler framework where “biodiversity” focuses on the number of units, while recognising that the same units can be part of numerous other calculations that include standard ecological indices. Thus, complementarity, endemism, and dissimilarities and many traditional ecological “diversity” measures all can be calculated, but they are not measures of “biodiversity”.

The framework based on counting-up units contrasts with other proposals for general frameworks for biodiversity, including those proposals that have attempted to include a variety of calculations—endemism, dissimilarity, rarity, etc.—within the definition of biodiversity (see below). The framework based on counting-up units implies not only that biodiversity as variety is that total count, but also that we can carry out lots of other important, associated, calculations that will be useful for decision-making and policy—notably looking at gains and losses. This idea of a biodiversity “calculus” contrasts with the ecologically oriented perspective that there are many different indices called “biodiversity”.

One important companion calculation is called “complementarity” (Kirkpatrick 1983)—the gains and losses in biodiversity as objects are gained or lost. While biodiversity is quantified by an inferred count of number of different units, decision-making about biodiversity uses various calculations based on those units. Complementarity usefully indicates marginal changes—the number of units lost, or the increase in the number represented by an added protected area. Faith (1994) focussed on complementarity as an example of useful calculations (referred to as “components of biodiversity”) based on inferred counts of units:

The problem of prioritising areas illustrates how pattern (specifically environmental pattern) can be used as a surrogate for biodiversity, in predicting the same components of biodiversity that would be used at the species level directly, notably complementarity.

The approach using environmental pattern for such calculations can be generalised to cover other patterns to make inferences about underlying units. For PD, the pattern is phylogeny and a species’ complementarity reflects the relative number of additional features contributed by that species. PD decision-making sometimes uses calculations that are integrated with species’ estimated extinction probabilities—extending the idea of complementarity to “expected” loss. Priorities for conservation efforts for endangered species then can respond both to degree of threat and to amount of potential loss of PD. One such conservation program is the EDGE of Existence program (“evolutionarily distinct and globally endangered”; see the link in Other Internet Resources ).

By recognising other calculations as useful, but not equated with “biodiversity”, and by side-stepping the weaknesses of the objects-differences framework, we can focus on counting-up different units, and focus on the value of having many different units. Thus, the idea of a useful calculus further reinforces the role of biodiversity-as-variety in providing option and insurance values.

This perspective is relevant to the second part of the IPBES definition of biodiversity (above), where “biodiversity” is to include various measures of “change” in distribution, abundance etc. This perhaps reflects the ecology perspectives in which “biodiversity” is equated with various ecological indices and calculations, such as dissimilarity or relative abundance. Sometimes it is not at all clear how the key idea of “biodiversity loss”—complementarity—applies in such cases. This issue is addressed further in the section below on ecology and ecosystems framings.

The IPBES definition illustrates the trend to include many other biotic/ecological aspects in the definition. Popular encyclopedia entries on “biodiversity” and major reviews illustrate how this trend has contributed to definitional chaos. In the Encyclopedia of Biodiversity , Swingland argues “An unequivocal, precise, and generally accepted definition of biodiversity does not exist”. in the Routledge Handbook of the Philosophy of Biodiversity , nearly every chapter discusses the “biodiversity” definition problem. The SEP entry supplement biodiversity preservation under environmental ethics laments “A persistent complication is that there continues to be no single agreed measure of biodiversity”.

Koricheva and Siipi (2004) observe that

biodiversity still lacks a universally agreed upon definition and is often redefined depending on the context and the author’s purpose.

They suggest that:

Such great terminological variation is understandable, since concerns for biodiversity relate to several realms of human practice, including conservation, management, economics, and ethics, and thus give rise to different “discourses”. (2004: 28)

The common measure, species richness, illustrates the different perspectives. The pre-history of biodiversity, reflecting the species extinction crisis and the values of variety, provides a core rationale for a definition that includes counting-up species. In contrast, Koricheva and Siipi (2004) argue that popularity of species richness (as a measure) continues simply because it is understandable, measurable, and it uses available information (see also Sarkar 2019). A section below (“the Conservation Biology framing”) returns to this issue, in considering a perspective that assumes that the “biodiversity” concept arose as part of the new discipline of conservation biology in the mid-1980s.

The pre-history of “biodiversity” also highlighted the idea that the value of variety itself should be considered along-side the recognised benefits (and dis-benefits) of individual species (“biospecifics”), and all these benefits/values can enter into trade-offs and synergies that support decision-making. Some current perspectives or framings about biodiversity and its value can be understood as again blurring that distinction between biodiversity and “biospecifics”. One such framing equates “biodiversity” with all of nature. A focus on “biodiversity” as the collection of individual units/elements suggests that “biodiversity” covers so many individual elements that it more or less can be equated with biotic “nature”. An ecological/ecosystem framing of biodiversity expands this further—“biodiversity” may be interpreted as including not only the many individual elements but also all their ecological interactions, and associated processes. These expanded perspectives, focused on elements and their interactions, create a risk that we may miss the opportunity to properly consider both values of nature/ecology and the values associated with biodiversity-as-variety.

Several factors may help to explain the current wide range of perspectives about biodiversity’s definition and values. One is the idea that the term “biodiversity” was intended to capture everything we wish to conserve within the discipline of conservation biology. Another is the idea that “biodiversity” only gains meaning and importance to humanity in supporting ecosystem functions and services. Both of these framings are supported by particular interpretations of the history of the concept. More recently, another emerging perspective is a call for a re-casting of the term “biodiversity” to make it more holistic in reflecting socio-ecological thinking. The themes outlined above roughly correspond to three kinds of re-framings of “biodiversity”, defining the next three sections below: §4 the ecology/ecosystem services framings , §5 the conservation biology framing , and §6 socio-ecological framings .

4. The Ecology/Ecosystem Services Framings

“Ecosystem services” are all the benefits that humanity derives from ecosystems (Daily 1997). While that term is probably younger than the term, “biodiversity”, it not only has its own pre-history (as “natural services” from nature; see, e.g., Holdren & Ehrlich 1974), but also shares a pre-history with “biodiversity”. This history reveals early ideas about how aspects of biotic diversity are important to maintaining the ecological functions that support ecosystem services. These discussions drew upon the long tradition in ecology to use various ecological indices—broadly referred to as “diversity” indices—and so inviting equation with the new term “biodiversity”. Exploring this connection between biotic diversity, ecological functions, and services has become a massive research venture over the past 25 years (for review, see, e.g., Gómez Baggethun et al. 2010). The name of the international platform for biodiversity, “Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services” (IPBES), reflects this active, high-profile, connection.

The ecosystem services framing of “biodiversity” interprets the many aspects of “diversity” that link to functions and services as part of a “biodiversity” narrative. This narrative is interpreted as the basis for a rationale for conserving biodiversity, because it is claimed to link biodiversity, for the first time, to benefits for humanity.

The insurance and options benefits from living variation recognised in the pre-history, also appear in later work, using the new term “biodiversity” (e.g., Bartkowski 2017). Post 1985, such discussions continued to follow the pre-history in considering the value of variety itself for insurance. However, alternative perspectives focussed more on the early discussions pointing to a broader ecological/ecosystem interpretation of insurance and related ideas such as “ecological integrity”.

IUCN (1980) described “ecological integrity” as:

Maintaining the diversity and quality of ecosystems and enhancing their capacity to adapt to change and provide for the needs of future generations.

Sometimes this more ecological rationale has been discussed as part of a new “biodiversity” framing, so setting the stage for ecological definitions of “biodiversity”.

For example, Ehrlich and Wilson (1991) listed three basic reasons why we should care about biodiversity. The first was most closely linked to intrinsic value: a “moral responsibility to protect what are our only known living companions in the universe”. Their second reason reflected the option value of biodiversity—the idea that

humanity has already obtained foods, medicines, and industrial products and other benefits from biodiversity, and has the potential for many more.

Their third reason was an insurance type argument, based on the recognised ecosystem services provided by natural ecosystems. Here, they made a link to biodiversity in arguing that “diverse species are the key working parts” within such ecosystems.

“Working parts” could mean variety, or it could refer to the ecology of lots of parts in an ecosystem. In earlier work (Ehrlich & Ehrlich 1981) “insurance” was linked to the loss of biological diversity and so linked to variety. Ehrlich and Ehrlich’s (1992: 219) later arguments for biodiversity conservation referred both to option value (from variety expressed as nature’s “genetic library”), and to insurance value—expressed less as variety and more as a consideration of ecological aspects. Thus, “insurance” sometimes joins “ecological integrity”, and similar terms as part of a storyline about many relevant aspects of ecosystems.

Similarly, the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) described the multiple values of biodiversity in a way that reinforced the duality of insurance and option values from variety, but also linked “biodiversity” to ecological aspects, including resilience and integrity.

The ecosystem services framing builds on the important idea that ecosystems provide many, often under-appreciated, benefits to people (clean water, useful resources, etc). It is natural to consider that these benefits provide a case for conservation of “biodiversity”. The ecosystems framing adopts the perspective that it is “biodiversity”—typically, interpreted broadly as ecological “diversity”—that is the basis for these important functions and services. This framing reduces the focus on variety of species or other elements (in the sense of counting-up). Perhaps because of the natural within-ecosystems focus, this also has amounted to lesser emphasis on global scale option value from such variety. The ecosystems framing reflects this perspective in the range of “biodiversity” definitions considered. The idea that “biodiversity” is important for ecosystem services is given support by defining “biodiversity” in terms of those ecological factors that are important for ecosystem services.

Noss (1990) regarded biodiversity as including composition, structure, and function, reflecting the range of “diversity” measures in ecology (ecological diversity indices are reviewed in Koricheva & Siipi 2004). The CBD’s use of the general term, “diversity” (see above) has provided a broad canvas for interpretation of “biodiversity” in a framing focussed on ecosystems. The now popular ecological definitions of “biodiversity” are exemplified in the Routledge Handbook of Ecosystem Services :

Biodiversity broadly encompasses the number, abundances, functional variety, spatial distribution, and interactions of genotypes, species, populations, communities, and ecosystems. (Balvanera et al. 2016: 46)

Díaz et al. (2009: 55) describe “biodiversity” as

the number, abundance, composition, spatial distribution, and interactions of genotypes, populations, species, functional types and traits, and landscape units in a given system.

Mace, Norris, and Fitter (2012) argued that the definition of “biodiversity” “embraces many alternative diversity measures” (see also Hillebrand et al. 2018), and highlighted “biodiversity” as species composition: “the composition of biological communities in the soil” is an example of how “biodiversity is a factor controlling the ecosystem processes that underpin ecosystem services” (2012: 22).

This broad use of diversity measures recalls early work linking various ecological diversity indices to “stability” and other desirable aspects of ecosystems (for review, see the SEP ecology entry). In the ecosystems framing, “biodiversity services” are defined in terms of ecological processes:

Biodiversity is structured by a range of ecological processes ….These processes—which can be termed “biodiversity services”—underpin and determine the stability, resilience, magnitude and efficiency of the functions and properties of ecosystems. (Seddon et al. 2016: 7)

This characterisation neglects the previous use of this same term to refer to global biodiversity option value (see Faith 2018b). Similarly, Norton (2001) pointed to increased emphasis on processes that under-pin ecological “health” or “integrity”, and de-emphasis of a conventional elements-oriented perspective for biodiversity.

These ecological definitions of “biodiversity” have influenced some perspectives about biodiversity values. The Encyclopedia of Biodiversity chapter on “The Value of Biodiversity” (Dasgupta, Kinzig, & Perrings 2013: 168), reflects the ecosystems framing in claiming that:

The value of biodiversity derives from the value of the final goods and services it produces. To estimate this value, one needs to understand the “production functions” that link biodiversity, ecosystem functions, ecosystem services, and the goods and services that enter into final demand.

“Option value” is mentioned in the chapter, but is linked to a “resource”, not to variety itself.

This framing is reflected also in the 2019 review, “The Economic Value of Biodiversity”, by Hanley and Perrings. It focuses on ecosystem services, and does not mention the investment value of biodiversity-as-variety. Similarly, in the Encyclopedia of Biodiversity chapter on “Sustainability and Biodiversity” (Cavender-Bares et al. 2013: 73), the value of biodiversity is based on its relationship to ecosystem functions, and their value of in terms of human well-being. Thus, the ecosystems framing tends to focus on within-ecosystem values and tends to ignore global values including option value.

A core perspective in this framing is that “biodiversity” is about critical ecological elements:

A major criticism of the valuation approach to conserving biodiversity is that current understanding of the mechanistic links between species and the functioning and resilience of ecosystems is far from complete…. Without this, we may fail to protect those elements of diversity crucial for ecosystem integrity. (Seddon et al. 2016)

A within-ecosystems focus, and typical neglect of global biodiversity option value, sometimes has been supported by an accounting in which “biodiversity” historically had been recognised as all about intrinsic value, until the ecosystem services framing forged links for the first time to anthropocentric values (for discussion, see Faith 2018b).

The rationale for the ecosystem services framing presents two principal approaches to conservation:

Caricaturing slightly, the first is focused on biodiversity conservation for its own sake, independent of human needs or desires. The second is focused on safeguarding ecosystem services for humanity’s sake: for the provision of goods, basic life-support services, and human enjoyment of nature. (Balvanera et al. 2001: 2047)

The ecosystems framing sees the ongoing loss of biodiversity as a values failure that calls for a shift to ecosystem services values:

Despite appeals about the intrinsic value of nature and important gains in some areas, the dominant flow of human activity has continued moving in directions detrimental to biodiversity conservation … In response, some within the conservation community have attempted to broaden the base of support for biodiversity conservation by adopting the concept of ecosystem services and by arguing that the conservation of biodiversity matters not only because of its intrinsic value but because it is essential for human well-being. (Reyers et al. 2012: 503)

Thus, in this historical accounting the ecosystems framing forged the first links from “biodiversity” to anthropocentric values.

A popular history of ecosystem services (Gómez Baggethun et al. 2010) similarly presents the original motivation for considering ecosystem services as helping biodiversity conservation:

It starts with the utilitarian framing of beneficial ecosystem functions as services in order to increase public interest in biodiversity conservation (Westman 1977…). (Gómez-Baggethun et al. 2010: 1209)

In reality, Westman did not refer to biodiversity (nor “biotic diversity”). Instead, Westman linked functions to various aspects of ecology, including “how components of the system interact” (1977: 961) and “the flow of materials and energy” (1977: 963).

Customised narratives in the ecosystem framing are apparent also in Peterson et al.’s (2018: 1) reference to:

the notion of the “maintenance of options” type of nature’s contributions to people (NCP 18; Díaz et al. 2018), enhancing “the capacity of ecosystems to keep options open in order to support a good quality of life” (Díaz et al. 2018: SM).

This would seem to make a strong case for a focus on ecosystems, but Peterson et al. misquote this foundational paper on NCP. “Maintenance of options” in fact is described (Díaz et al. 2018: Table S1) as the “Capacity of ecosystems, habitats, species or genotypes to keep options open in order to support a good quality of life”. The misrepresentation gives the impression that the maintenance of options is only about how ecosystems support human-well-being.

The shift by IPBES away from an ecosystem services framing in favour of a broader “nature’s contributions to people” (NCP; for discussion, see Díaz et al. 2018, 2019; Faith 2018b) reflected, in part, the need to better address global/regional biodiversity values:

It has to be recognized that the concept of “nature’s contributions to people” has evolved in a context where challenges related to the loss of biodiversity are addressed and assessed on global and regional levels. The implications of this widening from the ecosystem service framework … is largely an issue that remains to be explored. (IPBES 2018a)

The IPBES regional and global assessments (IPBES 2018b,c, 2019) advanced this wider conceptual framework through the use of a measure of biodiversity-as-variety, phylogenetic diversity, as an indicator of the global status of the maintenance of options (see link to “Phylogenetic diversity and IPBES” in Other Internet Resources).

5. The Conservation Biology Framing

Sarkar (2017: 43) summarises the basis for what might be called the conservation biology framing of “biodiversity”:

the term “biodiversity” and the associated concept(s) were introduced in the context of the institutional establishment of conservation biology as an academic discipline….

The SEP conservation biology entry describes the motivation for a biodiversity framing tied to this historical link: “in the 1980s, conservation biologists united and argued that biodiversity should be the focus of the discipline” which “rests on the value assumption that biodiversity is good and ought to be conserved”. This rationale, however, was not linked to any clear idea of what “biodiversity” means:

conservation biology as a discipline has expended a great deal of intellectual effort in articulating exactly what is its object of study and has settled on biodiversity as the answer. However, there is a debate concerning what biodiversity is….

Here, the stated rationale is that “biodiversity” is normative and is the focus of the discipline, but there is no reference to the pre-history discussions of a normatively relevant definition of biodiversity as variety.

The review of the development of the conservation biology, by Meine, Soule, and Noss. (2006), does trace some historical foundations. It documents the idea of a shift in thinking from individual species losses to loss of the diversity of life. This shift is described nicely in comparing two editions (1959 and 1987) of the same book (Matthiessen 1987)—where the 1987 version introduces new emphasis on the loss of “the diversity of life”. [ 2 ]

Sarkar (2017) notes that ecological diversity indices were largely ignored in the early history of conservation biology. In contrast, Meine, Soule, and Noss. (2006) frequently used the term “diversity”, This perhaps reflected co-author Noss’s (1990) much-cited paper characterising biodiversity as including composition, structure, and function, which echoes the range of “diversity” measures in ecology. The unlimited possibilities of such diversity measures may have contributed to the difficulty in finding agreement on a single definition of “biodiversity”. The conservation biology framing thus gains justification in embracing the prospect of “working-backwards”, with the challenge to define “biodiversity” to capture those aspects of biological/conservation normative value.

How then is “biodiversity” to be defined under these assumptions? The next two sections review the important discussions about the definition of biodiversity, and the later arguments that the definitional problems mean that the term “biodiversity” is counter-productive and should be abandoned.

“Biodiversity deflationism” emphasises the role of the biodiversity concept in conservation practice. Deflationists consider biodiversity as “what is conserved by the practice of conservation biology” (Sarkar 2002: 132). Unlike other framings of biodiversity, biodiversity is operationally defined, there is no semantic definition, just an output from the practice of conservation.

The practice of conservation biology should, within this view, be systematic conservation planning (Sarkar & Margules 2002). What is being conceptualised as biodiversity is revealed by this activity. This decision procedure involves using algorithms to identify a conservation area network; a conservation area that best optimises the interests of local stakeholders. Local stakeholders, people with an interest in that land, decide what features they want to prioritise. While stakeholder can have a wide range of interests in this land, they must include “biodiversity constituents” or “true surrogates” (Sarkar 2005, 2012). These describe the biotic features that the procedure maximises. “Biodiversity constituents” might appear to largely overlap with “biodiversity” in the sense of variety: a list of items, or measures of variety that describe biological items, which we aim to preserve. However, these items are not necessarily measuring biotic variety, as Sarkar includes sacred groves or the Monarch Butterfly Migration route as constituents of biodiversity. Sarkar stipulates that biodiversity constituents must satisfy the following conditions: they must be biological, variability of biotic features must be represented, taxonomic spread should be represented, these biotic features should not just be those of material use (Sarkar 2005; 2012). As such, there are adequacy conditions which guide what the procedure optimises and, as a result, conserves.

For proponents of biodiversity deflationism, there is no fact of the matter about what biodiversity is. Biodiversity is irrevocable local and tied to local values and interests in the natural environment. We can only infer backwards from what is preserved in the act of conservation to what convention tends to be described as biodiversity (Sarkar 2019). Therefore, biodiversity cannot play any role as a concept outside of the context of local conservation practice. This has an odd implication. Across biology biodiversity is used as concept within the science, both for conservation but for other sciences. Deflationists tend to dismiss biodiversity eliminativists, who want to ban the use of “biodiversity”, as too impractical as it is a common term in conservation (Sarkar 2019: 378). They, however, limit “biodiversity” to only conservation practice, claiming that scientific concepts of biodiversity are irrelevant (Sarkar 2019: 381). Biodiversity does not exist for the use of scientists in research. Thus, biodiversity conventionalists eliminate biodiversity from the context of scientific research and claim such research does not indicate what features we should preserve (see also the section on operationalizing biodiversity in the entry on conservation biology ).

While biodiversity has been accepted as a core goal of modern conservation science, there is some scepticism in the philosophical literature toward the utility of this concept. A series of philosophers have argued that the biodiversity concept is detrimental to environmental efforts (Maier 2012; Santana 2014, 2018; Morar, Toadvine, & Bohannan 2015). These arguments tend to coalesce around several points: that the biodiversity concept not operationalizable, biodiversity is not desirable, and that the concept obscures many of the values people have towards nature. The argument is that, either the concept cannot be used, or it may be used, but with recognition that it does not represent our ethical interest in the environment.

The belief that biodiversity cannot be adequately operationalized has appeared numerous times through the literature. Some argue that operationalizing biodiversity requires a “diversity” measure, or set of measures, both represent the concept of biodiversity and not be contradictory in its recommendations about what to conserve. Bryan Norton early on suggested that

strong arguments show that an index that captures all that is legitimately included as biodiversity is not possible. Biodiversity cannot be made a measurable quantity. (Norton 2008: 373)

This is because many of the different scientific measures for biodiversity are incommensurable, clashing with each other. For example: an area of possessing populations that are highly functionally distinct may be quite species poor. Some take the apparent incommensurability of biodiversity measures to show that measures should be used in context sensitive instances either relative to the development of conservation science or to the local interests of stakeholders (Koricheva & Siipi 2004; Sarkar 2005; Maclaurin & Sterelny 2008). An alternative considered is that we should narrow down the list of measures to that are most important according to some desiderata (Maclaurin & Sterelny 2008; Lean 2017; Meinard, Coq, & Schmid 2019).

Even if “biodiversity” was made to be tractable (in the sense used above), eliminativists are suspicious of biological diversity being regarded as valuable. Diversity across different biological arrangements is even argued to be undesirable. Maier points to diversity of parasites and diseases being undesirable (Maier 2012). Diversity sometimes reduces the value of taxa as the rarity of a species tends to increase its value (Santana 2014). Morar, Toadvine, and Bohannan (2015) explain this is because it is “not life’s variety but rather life itself” (2015: 24) that is valuable (without making reference to insurance and options values of variety). The perception of a mismatch between ethical interests in the environment and diversity is emphasised by all eliminativists.

Eliminativists believe “biodiversity” has mislead conservation, as the concept and term was designed to be exhaustive of human interests in the environment—and it cannot succeed in this task. The idea that biodiversity was designed to represent all human values of the environment appears in Maier’s work as “the biodiversity project”, Santana argues that biodiversity is just an intermediary for “ecological value”, and Morar, Toadvine, and Bohannan argue that biodiversity “does not exhaust what we value in the natural world” (2015: 24). Santana (2014) provides a clear presentation of this belief and uses it to argue that biodiversity is a misleading and unnecessary step in conservation planning. Biodiversity acts in conservation as an intermediary between all the ways we value the environment and the implementation of surrogate measures for these values, which are then used in conservation planning. Santana suggests we should remove the step of considering biodiversity and directly represent our values in the environment without considering diversity (see also SEP conservation biology entry)

This perspective differs from other frameworks for understanding biodiversity (including the focus on variety, originating in the pre-history of the term), which consider biodiversity as just one of several different conservation values which may trade off against each other (Faith 1995; Norton 2015; Lean 2017). One may choose to prioritise wilderness, or ecosystem services, over biodiversity and decision theoretic measures will be used to weight such considerations.

It is argued by some that biodiversity not only doesn’t represent all the ways the public values nature, it may also hinder the public’s engagement in nature. As a scientific “proxy” for natures value it is viewed as a dangerous case of scientism (Morar, Toadvine, & Bohannan 2015; Sarkar 2019). By having the “veneer of objectivity” it masks the normative dimension of conservation. The argument is that this can lead to an attitude of leave it to the scientists and shift the responsibility away from the policymakers and the public (Morar, Toadvine, & Bohannan 2015). This is interpreted as representing a dangerous impediment to the democratic dimension of conservation. This is regarded as an interesting question for the interface between conservation theory and public policy.

Eliminativism proposes that there are tensions in the use of the “biodiversity” concept, posing the idea that there is a mismatch between the scientific measures of biodiversity and the normative role it plays in conservation science. This perspective therefore contrasts strongly with the historical “variety” framing (above), where the scientific measure of biodiversity as variety, and its recognised value to humanity, is the source of normativity claims. [ 3 ] Eliminativists argue that, while it would be hard to remove “biodiversity” from use in conservation, this is necessary to allow for a clearer connection between humanities interests in the environment and conservation practice (also see the section on eliminating biodiversity in the entry on conservation biology ).

Sarkar (2019: 375) claims that “the term ”biodiversity“ and the associated concept(s)” arose along with the discipline of conservation biology. This accords with the deflationist and eliminativist perspectives that the “biodiversity story” began around 1985, with conservation biology guiding the conceptual development of “biodiversity”, including its definition and values. This narrative does not address the earlier conceptual history that had articulated normative value of living variation, and so it raises the need for comparisons with that “variationist” framing.

The SEP entry conservation biology provides some basis for comparisons, in exploring the idea that conservation biology is all about a still-undefined concept of “biodiversity”. In the entry’s section what is biodiversity? there are no citations of the early discussions from the 1970s, and so there is perhaps an under-appreciation of the early ideas of variety as a possible guide to resolving questions of definition. This relates to the interesting issues raised in this section about how the concept/definition of “biodiversity” is supposed to cope with the dis-benefits of some individual species. The challenge remains to recognise the possible useful distinction between biodiversity/variety and biospecifics (individual elements).

Consideration of the pre-history of “biodiversity” suggests that the conservation biology framing has adopted a story-line that is a disservice to systematics/taxonomy. As noted above, Sarkar (2017, 2019) follows his claim that the “biodiversity” term (and concept) were introduced in the context of the establishment of conservation biology, with the claim that

Subsequently, the term and the concept were embraced by other disciplines particularly by taxonomists…. as a conduit for funding that taxonomists wanted to exploit….

The pre-history, in contrast, reveals how the concept in fact arose through the work of systematists (e.g., Iltis 1972; Anonymous 1974), and was followed by calls by Wilson (1985) and others (see above) for more systematic efforts, in order to fill knowledge gaps (see also Lean, 2017).

The conservation biology framing highlights individual elements that are valuable, with less emphasis on variety. For example, Sarkar argues that conservation logically will focus on “those aspects of biotic variety that should be conserved. That does not necessarily include all of natural variety” (Sarkar 2019: 17). Sarkar’s example is revealing:

The human skin hosts thousands of microbial species though interpersonal variability is not as high as in the gut which hosts millions… Should we feel an imperative to conserve all the microbial diversity on the human skin or gut?

This sounds like a powerful example—who likes germs? The question in reality reveals an absence of consideration of the established benefits and values of variety itself. The gut microbial context is particularly revealing—over the past decade or so, reductions in an individuals’ variety of gut microbes (e.g., as measured using the PD biodiversity measure) is now associated with more than a dozen different human diseases. This biodiversity possibly provides a kind of insurance benefit in healthy individuals (see the link to “Phylogenetic Diversity and Human Health”, in Other Internet Resources ; for other philosophical issues related to microbial biodiversity, see Malaterre 2017).

A related conceptual disconnect is apparent also in Sarkar’s (2017) claim,

for a concept of biodiversity that can be used in practice for instance in the selection of conservation areas, richness was shown to be inadequate in the 1980s.

In contrast, variety or “richness” clearly is the desirable property of the set of conservation areas, and we use parts of the biodiversity “calculus” (see above), such as the complementarity of individual areas, in order to maximise this property of a nominated set. According to “variationists”, the concept of biodiversity as variety/richness is exactly what is needed to address the biodiversity crisis (Faith 2017).

Absence of recognition of the historical link between variety and normativity also suggests contrasts. The idea that “biodiversity” is the business of conservation biology, and that biodiversity is good, implies that,

if there is no adequate normative basis for biodiversity conservation, conservation biology becomes a dubious enterprise because its explicit purpose is the conservation of biodiversity.

The storyline is that conservation biology is normatively oriented, and so we have to find a definition of “biodiversity” that matches that normativity. In contrast, variationists would suggest the opposite: that “biodiversity” is normatively oriented, and then we have to find a “conservation biology” that addresses that normativity. Sarkar concludes that

how “biodiversity” is defined, that is, what the “constituents” of biodiversity are, depends on cultural choices about which natural values to endorse for conservation.

As noted above, the constituents of interest can include things like sacred groves, and processes like annual migration of Monarch butterflies (Sarkar 2019). Thus, this framing does not recognise biodiversity-as-variety, and its current benefit and normativity; instead, it looks for the elements that may be conserved with some normativity, and calls that “biodiversity”.

There seems to have been a logical development of arguments in the conservation framing—conservation biology was regarded as normatively all about “biodiversity”—a term interpreted as having no clear definition, and so to be defined by whatever conservation might normatively focus on—then arguments asserted that conservation focuses in practice on lots of things, and that this was a burden too great for the term. Not yet considered, in the development of philosophical arguments for the conservation biology framing, is the possibility that a miss-step was made right at the beginning—ignoring the preceding long history of “biodiversity” interpreted as variety, with current benefit to humanity, and normative import.

Eliminativists want to get rid of the term “biodiversity”, with the claim that this would allow for a clearer connection between humanity’s interests in the environment and conservation practice. But this is just one of at least three proposed fates for the problematic term “biodiversity”. Those advocating core biodiversity definitions and values based on variety (call them “variationists”, see also Burch-Brown and Archer 2017), might advocate adoption of this basic definition, with the claim that it not only accords best with the extinction crisis and core anthropocentric values (including insurance and investment), but also effectively allows trade-offs and synergies with humanity’s other interests.

A third pathway is discussed in the next section—where the fate of the problematic term “biodiversity” is not to be eliminativism, nor back-to-basics variationism, but is to be a kind of “holism”—“biodiversity” expanded in meaning to cover the whole range of “socio-ecological” or human-nature links.

The conservation biology framing interprets “biodiversity” as a term that is to capture everything we want to conserve. An emerging socio-ecological framing of biodiversity requires that the term take on a broader scope—it is to be made operational, not just for conservation, but more broadly for sustainability, encompassing the many ways that society and nature are inter-linked. While conservation biology has interpreted “biodiversity” as, from the start, all about society’s conservation values, the socio-ecological framing of biodiversity adopts a different narrative. Here, the claim is that, the term “biodiversity” started out with a too-narrow, strictly biological, interpretation, and now should be re-cast to better reflect, in different contexts, what society values about nature. The term “biodiversity” in fact appears to wear two different hats in the rationale for a socio-ecological framing: one of expectation and the other of disappointment. The expectation is that “biodiversity” is obliged to capture society’s various values and relationships with nature; the disappointment is based on the claim that in reality “biodiversity” has been too biotic and creates a human-nature dichotomy.

The roots of this framing are found in the idea that biodiversity must reflect society’s various environmental concerns. For example, the book, Defending Biodiversity (Newman, Varner, & Linquist 2017) focusses on philosophical issues about the value of “biodiversity”, because this is seen as the way to “throw a sufficiently large net over these many different flavours of environmentalism” (2017: 15). Similarly, Lele et al. (2018b) take as a starting point the idea that

The concept of biodiversity currently captures the core of naturalists’ concerns for the environment, subsuming earlier formulations such as wilderness or wildlife. (2018b: 7)

Two recent books summarise these perspectives ( Seeds of Change: Provocations for a New Research Agenda , Wyborn, Kalas, & Rust 2019 and Rethinking Environmentalism: Linking Justice, Sustainability, and Diversity , Lele et al. 2018a). In the first, Díaz (2019: 62) outlines an historical argument that “biodiversity” has been purely biological in focus, and therefore needs to be broadened to reflect human links:

The notion of biological diversity existed as a purely biological concept well before the word “biodiversity” emerged“ and ”Faced with the new challenge and desire to be useful to society,…. It is now clear that whilst “biodiversity” is about the biological realm, its crisis and potential solutions pertain to the social, cultural, economic and political realm….Broadening the concept of biodiversity—from a property of measurable biological systems to a socio-ecological boundary object.

Here, “biodiversity” history is presented as involving a post-1985 new-found desire to be useful to society, where, in response,

biological diversity scientists mustered the best tools they had: mathematical and statistical models and indices, which required a single and simple “currency”—the number of species…. (Díaz 2019; see also Sarkar 2019)

This claimed new awareness then sets up the call for a re-casting of “biodiversity”:

It is now clear that whilst “biodiversity” is about the biological realm, its crisis and potential solutions pertain to the social, cultural, economic and political realms. Therefore, diverse perspectives are needed in reframing biodiversity more broadly. Very few would contest this general statement…. (Díaz 2019: 62)

This claimed incontestability of the need for a biodiversity reframing is given support by an historical accounting that omits the rich history that had forged links to all those “realms” (see previous sections); anthropocentric insurance and investment values of biotic diversity (typically the number of species) were recognised in the context of the extinction crisis, and integrated in policy along with other needs of society. In contrast, the socio-ecological framing adopts a new historical accounting, where counting the number of species was simply a matter of mathematical and statistical models and indices, which then are found inadequate.

This new historical accounting omits the earlier history that justifies why biodiversity’s definition logically focusses on variety (or counting units). This omission props up the claim that even while “biodiversity” is largely biological, it is, at the same time, ill-defined and confusing. Redford and Mace (2018: 37) argue

The lack of clarity over the term simply adds another layer of confusion to what is already a complicated and interacting set of issues.

Mace (2019: 105) concludes

Looking back over the past 25 years—roughly the period that the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) has been in place and the term “biodiversity” has been in use—I conclude that it has become a confusing term… [ 4 ]

In the book, Rethinking Environmentalism: Linking Justice, Sustainability, and Diversity , Redford and Mace (2018) reinforce this interpretation of “biodiversity” as having only a recent history, with confusing definitions, and with little link to human concerns. This is seen as calling for the alternative socio-ecological framing, in which biodiversity conservation is seen as “inextricably linked to a living political discourse” so that a re-cast “biodiversity” can be defined “as including human beings” (2018: 33). Similar arguments are found in Koricheva and Siipi’s (2004) discussion of biodiversity as “a social and political construct”, compared to a purely scientific concept (see also the advocacy, by Meinard, Coq, & Schmid 2019, of “biodiversity practices” rather than “biodiversity”).

Pascual (2019) describes this framing as an “integrated socio-ecological” perspective where “biodiversity” is variously socially constructed. In this framing,

The ways we perceive and relate to biodiversity and make sense of it are influenced by collectively constructed and socially shared cognitive frameworks. (2019: 129)

Arguments for such a biodiversity re-casting have used the “people and nature” narrative (Díaz 2019). Mace (2014: 1559) describes the “people and nature” perspective as requiring

metrics that link nature to human well-being, explicitly identifying benefits needed and received by people … the science has moved fully away from a focus on species and protected areas and into a shared human nature environment, where the form, function, adaptability, and resilience provided by nature are valued most highly.

The rationale for rejecting the idea of “biodiversity” as a counting up of species (or other units) employs an argument that

biodiversity science can become quite reductionist and focussed on describing, defining, measuring and counting certain units of life. (Mace 2019: 105)

Mace concludes that

This aspect of biodiversity science to do with metrics has been important and influential, but curiously often somewhat disconnected from the global change and sustainability agenda. Important as it is this is, surely it is too narrow a focus for a biodiversity science that will support sustainability. (2019: 106)

This claim again highlights how the narrative in this socio-ecological framing sees “biodiversity” not only as obliged to capture sustainability, but also, in its present biological form, a disappointment in not being connected to humans.

Martin, McGuire, and Sullivan (2013: 125) similarly characterises “biodiversity” as problematical in being “distinct from other environmental phenomena, as well as from human activity”. They argue that such separation

may engender profoundly “unecological” thinking, by disassembling life’s entities both from each other and from the complex environmental contexts necessary for sustenance at all scales.

This dissatisfaction with counting-up units or items is echoed also in philosopher Elliot’s (2019) argument that “biodiversity” has failed to convince people to address environmental problems. He argues that that we need to “develop new conceptual schemes that link humans with their environments”, by

focusing less on specific items in the natural world that we want to maintain and more on developing resilient and sustainable systems that facilitate the myriad relationships between humans and nature. (2019: 68)

These perspectives within the socio-ecological framing suggest overlaps with the ideas of the conservation biology framing (though there appears to be little cross-citation). Significantly, both portray “biodiversity” as in need of some kind of re-casting, and both see the different ways in which society values nature as providing guidance about how we should interpret “biodiversity” in any given context. At the same time, core differences in the two framings remain: in one, “biodiversity” has a working biological definition, but is not connected to society’s values; in the other, “biodiversity” is connected to society’s (conservation) values, but we have no working definition.

A survey of the different perspectives about biodiversity’s definition and its values suggests new challenges for a coherent philosophy of biodiversity. For example, there has been little work recognising and reconciling two contrasting perspectives. In the “variationist” perspective, biodiversity-as-variety, is justifiably “biological”, and is normatively relevant; it enters broader sustainability practice through trade-offs and synergies with other needs of society. In the “socio-ecological” perspective, “biodiversity” is too “biological”, with no normativity, and it fails us if it is not re-cast to capture as a term all of the things that concern society within the global change and sustainability agenda.

There has been little cross-fertilisation among the three framings (variationist, conservation biology, and socio-ecological). The challenge ahead is to reconcile some strikingly different perspectives:

• “biodiversity” as biological (variation), and the benefit of variety as having normative importance,
• what is conserved as having normative importance, and the meaning of “biodiversity” obliged to capture all that,
• “biodiversity” as purely biological, and so needing a re-casting to gain normative status.

Challenges along the way will relate to the need to clarify distinctions between “biodiversity” as a property of a set, and “biodiversity” as a reference to that collection of units, where values of “biodiversity” then might refer to values of individual units or elements. For example, Pascual (2019: 129) used “nature” and “biodiversity” interchangeably, and this seems to have reflected a core interest in society’s values for “aspects” of biodiversity (not variety itself):

Valuation should therefore be about recognising and learning how to bridge distinct values of different people for different aspects of biodiversity.

When we start listing valued “aspects”, it is not surprising that this can be considered to be all-of-nature. However, we must ask: does this miss the opportunity to consider both the (often global) value of variety itself, and the (often local) value of favourite “aspects”?

A sense of history (and pre-history) may provide an important lens for synthesis across different perspectives. The IPBES (2019) Global Assessment reported that one million species may be at risk of extinction. Compare that to a report 40 years earlier, headlined, “The Threat to One Million Species” (Norman 1981). Significantly, both reports highlighted how the threat of extinctions is a potential loss of variety and future options for humanity. However, in the more recent reporting, this message is just one of many storylines in a complex, overwhelming, “biodiversity” narrative. This tangle of different storylines suggests that we now also face a “second biodiversity crisis” (Faith 2019), in which “biodiversity” has become a malleable term that is shaped and re-shaped to serve various scientific and policy agendas. The fate of “biodiversity” (the term) may have a lot to say about the fate of “biodiversity” (the variety of life).

A philosophy of “biodiversity” therefore still faces challenges at the most basic levels of definitions, values, and history. This calls out for synthesis of ideas, with equal attention to the fashionable new ideas and the (sometimes) unfashionable older ideas.

• Anonymous, 1974, “Trends, Priorities, and Needs in Systematic and Evolutionary Biology”, Systematic Biology , 23(3): 416–39. doi:10.1093/sysbio/23.3.416
• Balvanera, Patricia, Gretchen C. Daily, Paul R. Ehrlich, Taylor H. Ricketts, Sallie-Anne Bailey, Salit Kark, Claire Kremen, and Henrique Pereira, 2001, “Conserving Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services”, Science , 291(5511): 2047. doi:10.1126/science.291.5511.2047
• Balvanera, Patricia, Sandra Quijas, Berta Martín-López, Edmundo Barrios, Laura Dee, Forest Isbell, Isabelle Durance, Piran White, Ryan Blanchard, and Rudolf de Groot, 2016, “The Links Between Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services”, in Routledge Handbook of Ecosystem Services , Marion Potschin, Roy Haines-Young, Robert Fish, and R. Kerry Turner (eds.), New York: Routledge, pp. 45–61. doi:10.4324/9781315775302-5
• Bartkowski, Bartosz, 2017, “Are Diverse Ecosystems More Valuable? Economic Value of Biodiversity as Result of Uncertainty and Spatial Interactions in Ecosystem Service Provision”, Ecosystem Services , 24: 50–57. doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.02.023
• –––, 2019, “Valuation of Biodiversity”, in his Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Environmental Science , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acrefore/9780199389414.013.459
• Binder, Seth and Stephen Polasky, 2013, “Biodiversity, Human Well-Being, and Markets”, in Levin 2013, 1: 435–439. doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-384719-5.00360-9
• Brauman, Kate A., Lucas A. Garibaldi, Stephen Polasky, Yildiz Aumeeruddy-Thomas, Pedro H. S. Brancalion, Fabrice DeClerck, Ute Jacob, Matias Enrique Mastrangelo, Nsalambi V. Nkongolo, Hannes Palang, Néstor Pérez-Méndez, Lynne J. Shannon, Uttam Babu Shrestha, Evelyn Strombome, and Madhu Vermar, 2020, “Global Trends in Nature’s Contributions to People”, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 117(51): 32799–32805. doi:10.1073/pnas.2010473117
• Brennan, Andrew and Yeuk-Sze Lo, 2002 [2016], “Environmental Ethics”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy , Edward N. Zalta (ed.), < https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2016/entries/ethics-environmental/ >.
• Burch-Brown, Joanna and Alfred Archer, 2017, “In Defence of Biodiversity”, Biology & Philosophy , 32(6): 969–997. doi:10.1007/s10539-017-9587-x
• Casetta, Elena, Jorge Marques da Silva, and Davide Vecchi (eds.), 2019, From Assessing to Conserving Biodiversity: Conceptual and Practical Challenges , (History, Philosophy and Theory of the Life Sciences 24), Cham: Springer International Publishing. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-10991-2
• Cavender-Bares, Jeannine, James Heffernan, Elizabeth King, Stephen Polasky, Patricia Balvanera, and William C. Clark, 2013, “Sustainability and Biodiversity”, in Levin 2013: vol. 7, pp. 71–84. doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-384719-5.00390-7
• Chan, Kai M.A. and Terre Satterfield, 2013, “Justice, Equity and Biodiversity”, in Levin 2013: vol. 4, pp. 434–441. doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-384719-5.00252-5
• CBD, 1992, Convention on biological diversity , United Nations. [ CBD 1992 available available online ]
• Daily, Gretchen C. (ed.), 1997, Nature’s Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems , Washington, DC: Island Press.
• Dasgupta, Partha, Ann P. Kinzig, and Charles Perrings, 2013, “The Value of Biodiversity”, in Levin 2013: vol. 7, pp. 167–179. doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-384719-5.00372-5
• Díaz, Sandra, 2019, “Why Care About Nature? a Pluralistic Agenda for Biodiversity”, in Wyborn, Kalas, and Rust 2019: 62–65.
• Díaz, Sandra, Andy Hector, and David A Wardle, 2009, “Biodiversity in Forest Carbon Sequestration Initiatives: Not Just a Side Benefit”, Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability , 1(1): 55–60. doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2009.08.001
• Díaz, Sandra, Sebsebe Demissew, Julia Carabias, Carlos Joly, Mark Lonsdale, Neville Ash, Anne Larigauderie, Jay Ram Adhikari, Salvatore Arico, András Báldi, et al., 2015, “The IPBES Conceptual Framework: Connecting Nature and People”, Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability , 14: 1–16. doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2014.11.002
• Díaz, Sandra, Unai Pascual, Marie Stenseke, Berta Martín-López, Robert T. Watson, Zsolt Molnár, Rosemary Hill, Kai M. A. Chan, Ivar A. Baste, Kate A. Brauman, et al., 2018, “Assessing Nature’s Contributions to People”, Science , 359(6373): 270–272. doi:10.1126/science.aap8826
• Ehrenfeld, David W., 1970, Biological Conservation , New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
• –––, 1988, “Why Put a Value on Biodiversity?”, in Wilson 1988: 212–216. [ Ehrenfeld 1988 available online ]
• Ehrlich, Paul R. and Anne E. Ehrlich, 1981, Extinction: The Causes and Consequences of the Disappearance of Species , New York: Random House.
• –––, 1992, “The Value of Biodiversity”, Ambio , 21(3): 219–226.
• Ehrlich, Paul R. and Edward O. Wilson, 1991, “Biodiversity Studies: Science and Policy”, Science , 253(5021): 758–762. doi:10.1126/science.253.5021.758
• Elliot, Kevin C., 2019, “The Values Embedded Within Scientific Language: How ‘Biodiversity’ Separates Humans and Nature”, in Wyborn, Kalas, and Rust 2019: 66–68
• Eser, Uta, Albrecht Müller, Ann-Kathrin Neureuther, and Hannah Seyfang 2014, Prudence, Justice and the Good Life: A Typology of Ethical Reasoning in Selected European National Biodiversity Strategies , Bonn: IUCN Publications.
• Faith, Daniel P., 1992, “Conservation Evaluation and Phylogenetic Diversity”, Biological Conservation , 61(1): 1–10. doi:10.1016/0006-3207(92)91201-3
• –––, 1994, “Phylogenetic Pattern and the Quantification of Organismal Biodiversity”, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences , 345(1311): 45–58. doi:10.1098/rstb.1994.0085
• –––, 1995, Biodiversity and Regional Sustainability Analysis , Canberra, Australia: CSIRO (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization) Division of Wildlife and Ecology.
• –––, 2017, “A General Model for Biodiversity and Its Value”, in Garson, Plutynski, and Sarkar 2017: 69–85.
• –––, 2018a, “Biodiversity’s Option Value: A Comment on Maier (2018)”, Ambio , 47(6): 735–736. doi:10.1007/s13280-018-1069-0
• –––, 2018b, “Avoiding Paradigm Drifts in IPBES: Reconciling ‘Nature’s Contributions to People,’ Biodiversity, and Ecosystem Services”, Ecology and Society , 23(2): art40. doi:10.5751/ES-10195-230240
• –––, 2019, “Defending Biodiversity: Environmental Science and Ethics Jonathan A.Newman, Gary Varner and Stefan Linquist, 2017 Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, Xiv + 441 p.; £36.99 (Pb)”, Journal of Applied Philosophy , 36(4): 688–690. doi:10.1111/japp.12350
• –––, forthcoming, “Valuation and Appreciation of Biodiversity: The ‘Maintenance of Options’ Provided by the Variety of Life”, Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution .
• Farnham, Timothy J., 2007, Saving Nature’s Legacy: Origins of the Idea of Biological Diversity , New Haven: Yale University Press.
• –––, 2017, “A Confluence of Values: Historical Roots of Concern for Biological Diversity”, in Garson, Plutynski, and Sarkar 2017: ch. 1
• Francis, 2015, “Encyclical Letter Laudato Si’ of the Holy Father Francis: On Care for Our Common Home”, 24 May 2015, The Vatican. [ Francis 2015 available online ]
• Gascon, Claude, Thomas M. Brooks, Topiltzin Contreras-MacBeath, Nicolas Heard, William Konstant, John Lamoreux, Frederic Launay, Michael Maunder, Russell A. Mittermeier, Sanjay Molur, et al., 2015, “The Importance and Benefits of Species”, Current Biology , 25(10): R431–R438. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2015.03.041
• Garson, Justin, Anya Plutynski, and Sahotra Sarkar (eds.), 2017, The Routledge Handbook of Philosophy of Biodiversity , London: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781315530215
• Gómez-Baggethun, Erik, Rudolf de Groot, Pedro L. Lomas, and Carlos Montes, 2010, “The History of Ecosystem Services in Economic Theory and Practice: From Early Notions to Markets and Payment Schemes”, Ecological Economics , 69(6): 1209–1218. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.11.007
• Hanley, Nick and Charles Perrings, 2019, “The Economic Value of Biodiversity”, Annual Review of Resource Economics , 11: 355–375. doi:10.1146/annurev-resource-100518-093946
• Haskins, C., 1974, “Scientists Talk of the Need for Conservation and an Ethic of Biotic Diversity to Slow Species Extinction”, Science , 184(4137): 646–647. doi:10.1126/science.184.4137.646
• Hillebrand, Helmut, Bernd Blasius, Elizabeth T. Borer, Jonathan M. Chase, John A. Downing, Britas Klemens Eriksson, Christopher T. Filstrup, W. Stanley Harpole, Dorothee Hodapp, Stefano Larsen, et al., 2018, “Biodiversity Change Is Uncoupled from Species Richness Trends: Consequences for Conservation and Monitoring”, Journal of Applied Ecology , 55(1): 169–184. doi:10.1111/1365-2664.12959
• Himes, Austin and Barbara Muraca, 2018, “Relational Values: The Key to Pluralistic Valuation of Ecosystem Services”, Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability , 35: 1–7. doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2018.09.005
• Holdren, John P. and Paul R. Ehrlich, 1974, “Human Population and the Global Environment”, American Scientist , 62(3): 282–292.
• IPBES, 2018a. Background document: nature’s contributions to people , IPBES consultation and capacity building workshop, 4–6 June 2018. Objective 2: Nature’s contribution to people, Bonn, Germany, 15 pages.
• –––, 2018b, The IPBES Regional Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services for Asia and the Pacific , Madhav Karki, Sonali Senaratna Sellamuttu, Sana Okayasu, Wataru Suzuki (eds.), Bonn, Germany: Secretariat of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, 612 pages. [ IPBES 2018b available online ]
• –––, 2018c, The IPBES Regional Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services for Europe and Central Asia , Mark Rounsevell, Markus Fischer, Amor Torre-Marin Rando, and André Mader (eds.), Bonn, Germany: Secretariat of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, 892 pages. [ IPBES 2018c available online ]
• –––, 2019, Summary for Policymakers of the Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services , S. Díaz, J. Settele, E. S. Brondízio, H. T. Ngo, M. Guèze, J. Agard, A. Arneth, P. Balvanera, K. A. Brauman, S. H. M. Butchart, K. M. A. Chan, L. A. Garibaldi, K. Ichii J. Liu, S. M. Subramanian, G. F. Midgley, P. Miloslavich, Z. Molnár, D. Obura, A. Pfaff, S. Polasky, A. Purvis, J. Razzaque, B. Reyers, R. Roy Chowdhury, Y. J. Shin, I. J. Visseren-Hamakers, K. J. Willis, and C. N. Zayas (eds.), Bonn, Germany: IPBES Secretariat. doi:10.5281/zenodo.3553579
• Iltis, Hugh H., 1972, “Shepherds Leading Sheep to Slaughter: The Extinction of Species and the Destruction of Ecosystems”, The American Biology Teacher , 34(4): 201–221. doi:10.2307/4443886
• IUCN, 1980, World Conservation Strategy: living resource conservation for sustainable development , International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN). [ IUCN 1980 available online (pdf) ]
• Jetzkowitz, Jens, C.S.A. (Kris) van Koppen, Rolf Lidskog, Konrad Ott, Lieske Voget-Kleschin, and Catherine Mei Ling Wong, 2018, “The Significance of Meaning. Why IPBES Needs the Social Sciences and Humanities”, Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research , 31(sup1): S38–S60. doi:10.1080/13511610.2017.1348933
• Josephson, Julian, 1982, “Why Maintain Biological Diversity?”, Environmental Science & Technology , 16(2): 94A-97A. doi:10.1021/es00096a717
• Justus, James, Mark Colyvan, Helen Regan, and Lynn Maguire, 2009, “Buying into Conservation: Intrinsic versus Instrumental Value”, Trends in Ecology & Evolution , 24(4): 187–191. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2008.11.011
• Kirkpatrick, J.B., 1983, “An Iterative Method for Establishing Priorities for the Selection of Nature Reserves: An Example from Tasmania”, Biological Conservation , 25(2): 127–134. doi:10.1016/0006-3207(83)90056-3
• Koricheva, Julia and Helena Siipi, 2004, “The Phenomenon of Biodiversity”, in Oksanen and Pietarinen 2004: 27–53. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511498527.002
• Lean, Christopher Hunter, 2017, “Biodiversity Realism: Preserving the Tree of Life”, Biology & Philosophy , 32(6): 1083–1103. doi:10.1007/s10539-017-9592-0
• Lele, Sharachchandra, Eduardo S. Brondizio, John Byrne, Georgina M. Mace, and Joan Martinez-Alier (eds.), 2018a, Rethinking Environmentalism: Linking Justice, Sustainability, and Diversity (Strüngmann Forum Reports, 23), Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• –––, 2018b, “Framing the Environment”, in Lele et al. 2018a: 1–19.
• Levin, Simon A., 2013, Encyclopedia of Biodiversity , second edition, 7 volumes, Cambridge, MA: Academic Press.
• Lovejoy, T. E., 1980, “Changes in Biological Diversity”, in The Global 2000 Report to The President (Volume 2: The Technical Report), Gerald O. Barney (ed.), Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, pp. 327–332.
• MacArthur, Roberrt H., 1972, “Coexistence of Species”, in Challenging Biological Problems: Directions Toward Their Solution , John A. Behnke (ed.), New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 253–259.
• Mace, Georgina M., 2014, “Whose Conservation?”, Science , 345(6204): 1558–1560. doi:10.1126/science.1254704
• –––, 2019, “Where to Next for Biodiversity Science?”, in Wyborn, Kalas, and Rust 2019: 105–108.
• Mace, Georgina M., Ken Norris, and Alastair H. Fitter, 2012, “Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services: A Multilayered Relationship”, Trends in Ecology & Evolution , 27(1): 19–26. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2011.08.006
• Mace, Georgina M., Mike Barrett, Neil D. Burgess, Sarah E. Cornell, Robin Freeman, Monique Grooten, and Andy Purvis, 2018, “Aiming Higher to Bend the Curve of Biodiversity Loss”, Nature Sustainability , 1(9): 448–451. doi:10.1038/s41893-018-0130-0
• Maclaurin, James and Kim Sterelny, 2008, What is Biodiversity? , Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Maier, Donald S., 2012, What’s So Good About Biodiversity? , (The International Library of Environmental, Agricultural and Food Ethics, 19), Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. doi:10.1007/978-94-007-3991-8
• –––, 2018, “Should Biodiversity and Nature Have to Earn Their Keep? What It Really Means to Bring Environmental Goods into the Marketplace”, Ambio , 47(4): 477–492. doi:10.1007/s13280-017-0996-5
• Malaterre, Christophe, 2017, “Going Small: The Challenges of Microbial Biodiversity”, in Garson, Plutynski, and Sarkar 2017: ch. 10.
• Martin, Adrian, Shawn McGuire, and Sian Sullivan, 2013, “Global Environmental Justice and Biodiversity Conservation: Global Environmental Justice and Biodiversity Conservation”, The Geographical Journal , 179(2): 122–131. doi:10.1111/geoj.12018
• Matthiessen, Peter, 1959 [1987], Wildlife in America . New York: Viking. Updated edition, New York: Viking, 1987.
• Mazur, Allan and Jinling Lee, 1993, “Sounding the Global Alarm: Environmental Issues in the US National News”, Social Studies of Science , 23(4): 681–720. doi:10.1177/030631293023004003
• McNeely, Jeffrey A., 1988, Economics and Biological Diversity: Developing and Using Economic Incentives to Conserve Biological Resources , Gland, Switzerland: IUCN.
• McShane, Katie, 2017, “Is Biodiversity Intrinsically Valuable? (And What Might that Mean?)”, in Garson, Plutynski, and Sarkar 2017: 410–443.
• Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005, Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Biodiversity Synthesis , Washington, DC: World Resources Institute. Ecosystem Assessment, 2005. [ (PDF) ]
• Meinard, Yves, Sylvain Coq, and Bernhard Schmid, 2019, “The Vagueness of ‘Biodiversity’ and Its Implications in Conservation Practice”, in Casetta, da Silva, and Vecchi 2019: 353–374. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-10991-2_17
• Meine, Curt, Michael Soule, and Reed F. Noss, 2006, “‘A Mission-Driven Discipline’: The Growth of Conservation Biology”, Conservation Biology , 20(3): 631–651. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00449.x
• Morar, Nicolae, Ted Toadvine, and Brendan J. M. Bohannan, 2015, “Biodiversity at Twenty-Five Years: Revolution Or Red Herring?”, Ethics, Policy & Environment , 18(1): 16–29. doi:10.1080/21550085.2015.1018380
• Morgan, Gregory J., 2009, “The Many Dimensions of Biodiversity”, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences , 40(3): 235–238. doi:10.1016/j.shpsc.2009.06.001
• Myers, Norman, 1976, “An Expanded Approach to the Problem of Disappearing Species”, Science , 193(4249): 198–202. doi:10.1126/science.193.4249.198
• –––, 1979, The Sinking Ark: A New Look at the Problem of Disappearing Species , New York: Pergamon Press.
• Myers, Norman and Edward S. Ayensu, 1983, “Reduction of Biological Diversity and Species Loss”, Ambio , 12(2): 72–74.
• Newman, Jonathan A., Gary Varner, and Stefan Linquist, 2017, Defending Biodiversity: Environmental Science and Ethics , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/9781139024105
• Norman, Colin, 1981, “The Threat to One Million Species”, Science , 214(4525): 1105–1107. doi:10.1126/science.214.4525.1105
• Norton, Bryan G. (ed), 1986, The Preservation of Species: The Value of Biological Diversity , Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• –––, 2001, “Conservation Biology and Environmental Values: Can There be a Universal Earth Ethic?” in Protecting Biological Diversity: Roles and Responsibilities , Catherine Potvin, Margaret Kraenzel, and Gilles Seutin (eds.), Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, pp. 71–102.
• –––, 2008, “Toward a Policy-Relevant Definition of Biodiversity”, in Saving Biological Diversity: Balancing Protection of Endangered Species and Ecosystems , Robert A. Askins, Glenn D. Dreyer, Gerald R. Visgilio, and Diana M. Whitelaw (eds.), Boston, MA: Springer, pp. 11–20. doi:10.1007/978-0-387-09565-3_2
• –––, 2015, Sustainable Values, Sustainable Change: a Guide to Environmental Decision Making , Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Noss, Reed F., 1990, “Indicators for Monitoring Biodiversity: A Hierarchical Approach”, Conservation Biology , 4(4): 355–364. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.1990.tb00309.x
• Odenbaugh, Jay, 2016 [2019], “Conservation Biology”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2019 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = < https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2019/entries/conservation-biology/ >.
• Oksanen, Markku, 1997, “The Moral Value of Biodiversity”, Ambio , 26(8): 541–545.
• –––, 2004, “Biodiversity Considered Philosophically: An Introduction”, in Oksanen and Pietarinen 2004: 1–24. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511498527.001
• Oksanen, Markku and Juhani Pietarinen (eds.), 2004, Philosophy and Biodiversity , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511498527
• Pascual, Unai, 2019, “Why Do We Need a More Pluralistic Approach to Valuing Biodiversity?” in Wyborn, Kalas, and Rust 2019: 126–130
• Peterson, Garry D., Zuzana V. Harmáčková, Megan Meacham, Cibele Queiroz, Amanda Jiménez-Aceituno, Jan J. Kuiper, Katja Malmborg, Nadia Sitas, and Elena M. Bennett, 2018, “Welcoming Different Perspectives in IPBES: ‘Nature’s Contributions to People’ and ‘Ecosystem Services’”, Ecology and Society , 23(1): art39. doi:10.5751/ES-10134-230139
• Reid, Walter V. and Kenton R. Miller, 1989, Keeping Options Alive: The Scientific Basis for Conserving Biological Diversity , Washington, DC: World Resources Institute. [ Reid and Miller 1989 available online ]
• Redford, Kent H. and Georgina M. Mace, 2018, “Conserving and Contesting Biodiversity in the Homogocene”, in Lele et al. 2018a: 23–40.
• Reyers, Belinda, Stephen Polasky, Heather Tallis, Harold A. Mooney, and Anne Larigauderie, 2012, “Finding Common Ground for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services”, BioScience , 62(5): 503–507. doi:10.1525/bio.2012.62.5.12
• Roush, G. Jon, 1977, “Why Save Diversity?” Nature Conservancy News , 21(1): 9–12.
• Santana, Carlos, 2014, “Save the Planet: Eliminate Biodiversity”, Biology & Philosophy , 29(6): 761–780. doi:10.1007/s10539-014-9426-2
• –––, 2018, “Biodiversity Is a Chimera, and Chimeras Aren’t Real”, Biology & Philosophy , 33(1–2): art. 15. doi:10.1007/s10539-018-9626-2
• Sarkar, Sahotra, 2002, “Defining ‘Biodiversity’; Assessing Biodiversity”, Monist , 85(1): 131–155. doi:10.5840/monist20028515
• –––, 2005, Biodiversity and Environmental Philosophy: An Introduction , (Cambridge Studies in Philosophy and Biology), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511498558
• –––, 2012, Environmental Philosophy: from Theory to Practice , Chichester, England: John Wiley & Sons.
• –––, 2014, “Biodiversity and Systematic Conservation Planning for the Twenty-First Century: A Philosophical Perspective”, Conservation Science , 2(1): 1–11. doi:10.3126/cs.v2i1.13765
• –––, 2006 [2016], “Ecology”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2016 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = < https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2016/entries/ecology/ >.
• –––, 2017, Approaches to Biodiversity , in Garson, Plutynski, and Sarkar 2017: ch. 3.
• –––, 2019, “What Should ‘Biodiversity’ Be?”, in Casetta, da Silva, and Vecchi 2019: 375–399. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-10991-2_18
• Sarkar, Sahotra and Chris Margules, 2002, “Operationalizing Biodiversity for Conservation Planning”, Journal of Biosciences , 27(4): 299–308. doi:10.1007/BF02704961
• Schroeder Doris and Balakrishna Pisupati, 2010, “Ethics, Justice and the Convention on Biological Diversity”, United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP). [ Schroeder and Pisupati 2010 available online ]
• Seddon, Nathalie, Georgina M. Mace, Shahid Naeem, Joseph A. Tobias, Alex L. Pigot, Rachel Cavanagh, David Mouillot, James Vause, and Matt Walpole, 2016, “Biodiversity in the Anthropocene: Prospects and Policy”, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences , 283(1844): 20162094. doi:10.1098/rspb.2016.2094
• Swingland, Ian R., 2013, “Biodiversity, Definition Of”, in Levin 2013: vol. 1, pp. 399–410. doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-384719-5.00009-5
• WCED (World Commission on Environment and Development), 1987, Our Common Future , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Weikard, Hans-Peter, 2002, “Diversity Functions and the Value of Biodiversity”, Land Economics , 78(1): 20–27. doi:10.2307/3146920
• Weitzman, Martin L., 1992, “On Diversity”, The Quarterly Journal of Economics , 107(2): 363–405. doi:10.2307/2118476
• Westman, Walter E., 1977, “How Much Are Nature’s Services Worth?”, Science , 197(4307): 960–964. doi:10.1126/science.197.4307.960
• Wilson, Edward O., 1984, “Million-Year Histories: Species Diversity as an Ethical Goal”, Wilderness , 47 (Summer): 12–17.
• –––, 1985, “The Biological Diversity Crisis”, BioScience , 35(11): 700–706. doi:10.2307/1310051
• ––– (ed.), 1988, Biodiversity , Washington, DC: National Academies Press. doi:10.17226/989
• Wyborn, Carina, Nicole Kalas, and Niki A. Rust, 2019, Seeds of Change: Provocations for a New Research Agenda , Biodiversity Revisited Symposium Conference Proceedings, 11–13 September 2019, Vienna, Austria. doi:10.13140/RG.2.2.22170.59848/3

How to cite this entry . Preview the PDF version of this entry at the Friends of the SEP Society . Look up topics and thinkers related to this entry at the Internet Philosophy Ontology Project (InPhO). Enhanced bibliography for this entry at PhilPapers , with links to its database.

• Biodiversity , definition in the Glossary at the U.N./IPBES (Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services).
• EDGE of Existence , program at the Zoological Society of London.
• Phylogenetic diversity and IPBES by Dan Faith.
• Phylogenetic Diversity and Human Health , by Dan Faith.

conservation biology | ecology | ethics: environmental

Acknowledgments

I thank Christopher Hunter Lean (Philosophy Department, University of Sydney) who provided discussions about key themes, draft text for the sections on deflationism and elimatativism, and a list of suggested references.

Copyright © 2021 by Daniel P. Faith < danfaith9 @ yahoo . com . au >

• Accessibility

Support SEP

Mirror sites.

View this site from another server:

• Info about mirror sites

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is copyright © 2023 by The Metaphysics Research Lab , Department of Philosophy, Stanford University

Library of Congress Catalog Data: ISSN 1095-5054

• CBSE Class 10th
• CBSE Class 12th
• UP Board 10th
• UP Board 12th
• Bihar Board 10th
• Bihar Board 12th
• Top Schools in India
• Top Schools in Delhi
• Top Schools in Mumbai
• Top Schools in Chennai
• Top Schools in Hyderabad
• Top Schools in Kolkata
• Top Schools in Pune
• Top Schools in Bangalore

Products & Resources

• JEE Main Knockout April
• Free Sample Papers
• Free Ebooks
• NCERT Notes
• NCERT Syllabus
• NCERT Books
• RD Sharma Solutions
• Navodaya Vidyalaya Admission 2024-25
• NCERT Solutions
• NCERT Solutions for Class 12
• NCERT Solutions for Class 11
• NCERT solutions for Class 10
• NCERT solutions for Class 9
• NCERT solutions for Class 8
• NCERT Solutions for Class 7
• JEE Main 2024
• JEE Advanced 2024
• BITSAT 2024
• View All Engineering Exams
• Colleges Accepting B.Tech Applications
• Top Engineering Colleges in India
• Engineering Colleges in India
• Engineering Colleges in Tamil Nadu
• Engineering Colleges Accepting JEE Main
• Top IITs in India
• Top NITs in India
• Top IIITs in India
• JEE Main College Predictor
• JEE Main Rank Predictor
• MHT CET College Predictor
• AP EAMCET College Predictor
• GATE College Predictor
• KCET College Predictor
• JEE Advanced College Predictor
• View All College Predictors
• JEE Main Question Paper
• JEE Main Mock Test
• JEE Main Registration
• JEE Main Syllabus
• Download E-Books and Sample Papers
• Compare Colleges
• B.Tech College Applications
• GATE 2024 Result
• MAH MBA CET Exam
• View All Management Exams

Colleges & Courses

• MBA College Admissions
• MBA Colleges in India
• Top IIMs Colleges in India
• Top Online MBA Colleges in India
• MBA Colleges Accepting XAT Score
• BBA Colleges in India
• XAT College Predictor 2024
• SNAP College Predictor
• NMAT College Predictor
• MAT College Predictor 2024
• CMAT College Predictor 2024
• CAT Percentile Predictor 2023
• CAT 2023 College Predictor
• CMAT 2024 Registration
• TS ICET 2024 Registration
• CMAT Exam Date 2024
• MAH MBA CET Cutoff 2024
• Download Helpful Ebooks
• List of Popular Branches
• QnA - Get answers to your doubts
• IIM Fees Structure
• AIIMS Nursing
• Top Medical Colleges in India
• Top Medical Colleges in India accepting NEET Score
• Medical Colleges accepting NEET
• List of Medical Colleges in India
• List of AIIMS Colleges In India
• Medical Colleges in Maharashtra
• Medical Colleges in India Accepting NEET PG
• NEET College Predictor
• NEET PG College Predictor
• NEET MDS College Predictor
• DNB CET College Predictor
• DNB PDCET College Predictor
• NEET Application Form 2024
• NEET PG Application Form 2024
• NEET Cut off
• NEET Online Preparation
• Download Helpful E-books
• LSAT India 2024
• Colleges Accepting Admissions
• Top Law Colleges in India
• Law College Accepting CLAT Score
• List of Law Colleges in India
• Top Law Colleges in Delhi
• Top Law Collages in Indore
• Top Law Colleges in Chandigarh
• Top Law Collages in Lucknow

Predictors & E-Books

• CLAT College Predictor
• MHCET Law ( 5 Year L.L.B) College Predictor
• AILET College Predictor
• Sample Papers
• Compare Law Collages
• Careers360 Youtube Channel
• CLAT Syllabus 2025
• CLAT Previous Year Question Paper
• AIBE 18 Result 2023
• NID DAT Exam
• Pearl Academy Exam

Animation Courses

• Animation Courses in India
• Animation Courses in Bangalore
• Animation Courses in Mumbai
• Animation Courses in Pune
• Animation Courses in Chennai
• Animation Courses in Hyderabad
• Design Colleges in India
• Fashion Design Colleges in Bangalore
• Fashion Design Colleges in Mumbai
• Fashion Design Colleges in Pune
• Fashion Design Colleges in Delhi
• Fashion Design Colleges in Hyderabad
• Fashion Design Colleges in India
• Top Design Colleges in India
• Free Design E-books
• List of Branches
• Careers360 Youtube channel
• NIFT College Predictor
• UCEED College Predictor
• NID DAT College Predictor
• IPU CET BJMC
• JMI Mass Communication Entrance Exam
• IIMC Entrance Exam
• Media & Journalism colleges in Delhi
• Media & Journalism colleges in Bangalore
• Media & Journalism colleges in Mumbai
• List of Media & Journalism Colleges in India
• CA Intermediate
• CA Foundation
• CS Executive
• CS Professional
• Difference between CA and CS
• Difference between CA and CMA
• CA Full form
• CMA Full form
• CS Full form
• CA Salary In India

Top Courses & Careers

• Bachelor of Commerce (B.Com)
• Master of Commerce (M.Com)
• Company Secretary
• Cost Accountant
• Charted Accountant
• Credit Manager
• Financial Advisor
• Top Commerce Colleges in India
• Top Government Commerce Colleges in India
• Top Private Commerce Colleges in India
• Top M.Com Colleges in Mumbai
• Top B.Com Colleges in India
• IT Colleges in Tamil Nadu
• IT Colleges in Uttar Pradesh
• MCA Colleges in India
• BCA Colleges in India

Quick Links

• Information Technology Courses
• Programming Courses
• Web Development Courses
• Data Analytics Courses
• Big Data Analytics Courses
• RUHS Pharmacy Admission Test
• Top Pharmacy Colleges in India
• Pharmacy Colleges in Pune
• Pharmacy Colleges in Mumbai
• Colleges Accepting GPAT Score
• Pharmacy Colleges in Lucknow
• List of Pharmacy Colleges in Nagpur
• GPAT Result
• GPAT 2024 Admit Card
• GPAT Question Papers
• NCHMCT JEE 2024
• Mah BHMCT CET
• Top Hotel Management Colleges in Delhi
• Top Hotel Management Colleges in Hyderabad
• Top Hotel Management Colleges in Mumbai
• Top Hotel Management Colleges in Tamil Nadu
• Top Hotel Management Colleges in Maharashtra
• B.Sc Hotel Management
• Hotel Management
• Diploma in Hotel Management and Catering Technology

Diploma Colleges

• Top Diploma Colleges in Maharashtra
• UPSC IAS 2024
• SSC CGL 2024
• IBPS RRB 2024
• Previous Year Sample Papers
• Free Competition E-books
• Sarkari Result
• QnA- Get your doubts answered
• UPSC Previous Year Sample Papers
• CTET Previous Year Sample Papers
• SBI Clerk Previous Year Sample Papers
• NDA Previous Year Sample Papers

Upcoming Events

• NDA Application Form 2024
• UPSC IAS Application Form 2024
• CDS Application Form 2024
• CTET Admit card 2024
• HP TET Result 2023
• SSC GD Constable Admit Card 2024
• UPTET Notification 2024
• SBI Clerk Result 2024

Other Exams

• SSC CHSL 2024
• UP PCS 2024
• UGC NET 2024
• RRB NTPC 2024
• IBPS PO 2024
• IBPS Clerk 2024
• IBPS SO 2024
• Top University in USA
• Top University in Canada
• Top University in Ireland
• Top Universities in UK
• Top Universities in Australia
• Best MBA Colleges in Abroad
• Business Management Studies Colleges

Top Countries

• Study in USA
• Study in UK
• Study in Canada
• Study in Australia
• Study in Ireland
• Study in Germany
• Study in China
• Study in Europe

Student Visas

• Student Visa Canada
• Student Visa UK
• Student Visa USA
• Student Visa Australia
• Student Visa Germany
• Student Visa New Zealand
• Student Visa Ireland
• CUET PG 2024
• IGNOU B.Ed Admission 2024
• DU Admission
• UP B.Ed JEE 2024
• DDU Entrance Exam
• IIT JAM 2024
• IGNOU Online Admission 2024
• Universities in India
• Top Universities in India 2024
• Top Colleges in India
• Top Universities in Uttar Pradesh 2024
• Top Universities in Bihar
• Top Universities in Madhya Pradesh 2024
• Top Universities in Tamil Nadu 2024
• Central Universities in India
• CUET PG Admit Card 2024
• IGNOU Date Sheet
• CUET Mock Test 2024
• CUET Application Form 2024
• CUET PG Syllabus 2024
• CUET Participating Universities 2024
• CUET Previous Year Question Paper
• CUET Syllabus 2024 for Science Students
• E-Books and Sample Papers
• CUET Exam Pattern 2024
• CUET Exam Date 2024
• CUET Syllabus 2024
• IGNOU Exam Form 2024
• IGNOU Result
• CUET PG Courses 2024

Engineering Preparation

• Knockout JEE Main 2024
• Test Series JEE Main 2024
• JEE Main 2024 Rank Booster

Medical Preparation

• Knockout NEET 2024
• Test Series NEET 2024
• Rank Booster NEET 2024

Online Courses

• JEE Main One Month Course
• NEET One Month Course
• IBSAT Free Mock Tests
• IIT JEE Foundation Course
• Knockout BITSAT 2024
• Career Guidance Tool

Top Streams

• IT & Software Certification Courses
• Engineering and Architecture Certification Courses
• Programming And Development Certification Courses
• Business and Management Certification Courses
• Marketing Certification Courses
• Health and Fitness Certification Courses
• Design Certification Courses

Specializations

• Digital Marketing Certification Courses
• Cyber Security Certification Courses
• Artificial Intelligence Certification Courses
• Business Analytics Certification Courses
• Data Science Certification Courses
• Cloud Computing Certification Courses
• Machine Learning Certification Courses
• View All Certification Courses
• UG Degree Courses
• PG Degree Courses
• Short Term Courses
• Free Courses
• Online Degrees and Diplomas
• Compare Courses

Top Providers

• Coursera Courses
• Udemy Courses
• Edx Courses
• Swayam Courses
• upGrad Courses
• Simplilearn Courses
• Great Learning Courses

Access premium articles, webinars, resources to make the best decisions for career, course, exams, scholarships, study abroad and much more with

Plan, Prepare & Make the Best Career Choices

Biodiversity Essay

Broadly speaking, biodiversity, also known as biological diversity, refers to various types of plants and animals on Earth. The process of continuous biodiversity conservation is essential right now. A greater level of biodiversity is necessary to maintain the harmony of the natural environment. Here are a few sample essays on biodiversity.

100 Words Essay On Biodiversity

200 words essay on biodiversity, 500 words essay on biodiversity.

The term "biodiversity" is used to describe the variety of plants, animals, and other species found in an environment. All of them have a significant impact on preserving the planet's healthy ecosystem. In order to sustain the health of the ecosystem and human life, it is critical to maintain a high degree of biodiversity.

However, maintaining biodiversity is getting more challenging due to the increasing air, water, and land pollution on our planet. A number of plant and animal species have gone extinct as a result of the quick environmental changes brought on by the aforementioned causes of biodiversity loss.

By encouraging individuals to adopt more environmentally friendly behaviours and practises and to build a more peaceful and sympathetic relationship with the environment, it is possible to preserve biodiversity.

‘Bio’, which stands for life, and ‘diversity’, which means variety, make up the phrase "biodiversity." The diversity of life on Earth is referred to as biodiversity. Living species include all types of plants, animals, microorganisms, and fungus.

Benefits Of Biodiversity

Community engagement to protect biodiversity is crucial. Biodiversity has several economic advantages.

Many parts of the world benefit economically from biodiversity. The tourism and recreation industries are facilitated by biodiversity. National Parks and Natural Reserves gain a lot from it.

The best locations for ecotourism, photography, art, cinematography, and literary works are in forests, animal reserves, and sanctuaries.

Biodiversity is essential for maintaining the gaseous composition of the atmosphere, breaking down waste, and removing contaminants.

Biodiversity helps in improving soil quality.

Types Of Biodiversity

Genetic Biodiversity | Genetic diversity refers to the variance in genes and genotypes within a species, such as how each individual human differs from the others in appearance.

Species Biodiversity | The variety of species found in a habitat or an area is known as species diversity. It is the diversity of life that is seen in a community. Ecosystem Biodiversity | The diversity of plant and animal species that coexist and are linked by food webs and food chains is referred to as ecological biodiversity.

The biological diversity of many plants and animals is essential to everything. However, biodiversity is declining daily for a number of causes. Our planet could no longer be a place to live if it doesn't stop. Thus, several strategies help in boosting the earth's biodiversity. The three main threats to biodiversity today are habitat loss, hunting, and poaching. At an alarming rate, humans are destroying forests, grasslands, reefs and other natural areas.

Hundreds of species that live in these habitats are therefore vanishing every year. Due to population decline caused by illegal hunting and poaching, several species are put under even more stress.

Importance Of Biodiversity

Maintaining biodiversity is crucial for the health of the ecological system. Many species of plants and animals are dependent on each other. As a result, if one becomes extinct, the others will begin to become vulnerable. Additionally, as both plants and animals are necessary for human existence, it is crucial for us as well. For instance, in order to exist, humans require food, which we obtain from plants. We cannot produce any crops if the soil does not provide a conducive climate. As a result, we won't be able to live sustainably on this planet.

Biodiversity in both flora and fauna is essential today. Therefore, to prevent the decrease in species in danger, we need to implement a number of interventions. Furthermore, vehicle pollution should decrease. So that both humans and animals can get fresh air to breathe. Moreover, it will also decrease global warming which is the major cause of the extinction of the species.

How To Preserve Biodiversity

The basic goal of biodiversity conservation is to protect life on earth, all species, the ecosystem, and a healthy environment for all time so that it will continue to be healthy for future generations. The maintenance of the food chain, the provision of a healthy habitat for many animals, including people, and the promotion of our sustainable development all depend heavily on biodiversity conservation.

Here are some ways you can preserve biodiversity:

Set Up Gardens | The simplest approach to increase biodiversity is to build gardens inside of homes. In the yard or even on the balcony, you may grow a variety of plants. Additionally, this would contribute to bringing in more fresh air within the house.

Plant Local Flowers, Fruits And Vegetables | Plant a variety in your backyard or a hanging garden using the native plants, fruits, and vegetables of your region. Nurseries are excellent places to learn about caring for and preserving plants.

3 R’s | Reduce your consumption, reuse what you can, recycle before throwing away.

Since humans consume the majority of biodiversity resources, it is primarily their duty to maintain and safeguard biodiversity in order to save the environment. The diversity of species, the health of the ecosystem, the state of the environment, and the continued viability of life on earth are crucial. By maintaining and safeguarding species, ecosystems, and natural resources, biodiversity conservation can be achieved for the sustainability of a healthy planet. Some rare species can be saved with the help of law enforcement.

All living species are interconnected and can be negatively impacted by one disturbance and therefore maintaining biodiversity is crucial for human survival. Inadequate biodiversity protection puts human life, as well as the lives of plants, animals, and the environment, at danger. As a result, we must make every effort to preserve our biodiversity.

Explore Career Options (By Industry)

• Construction
• Entertainment
• Manufacturing
• Information Technology

Bio Medical Engineer

The field of biomedical engineering opens up a universe of expert chances. An Individual in the biomedical engineering career path work in the field of engineering as well as medicine, in order to find out solutions to common problems of the two fields. The biomedical engineering job opportunities are to collaborate with doctors and researchers to develop medical systems, equipment, or devices that can solve clinical problems. Here we will be discussing jobs after biomedical engineering, how to get a job in biomedical engineering, biomedical engineering scope, and salary. 

Data Administrator

Database professionals use software to store and organise data such as financial information, and customer shipping records. Individuals who opt for a career as data administrators ensure that data is available for users and secured from unauthorised sales. DB administrators may work in various types of industries. It may involve computer systems design, service firms, insurance companies, banks and hospitals.

Ethical Hacker

A career as ethical hacker involves various challenges and provides lucrative opportunities in the digital era where every giant business and startup owns its cyberspace on the world wide web. Individuals in the ethical hacker career path try to find the vulnerabilities in the cyber system to get its authority. If he or she succeeds in it then he or she gets its illegal authority. Individuals in the ethical hacker career path then steal information or delete the file that could affect the business, functioning, or services of the organization.

Data Analyst

The invention of the database has given fresh breath to the people involved in the data analytics career path. Analysis refers to splitting up a whole into its individual components for individual analysis. Data analysis is a method through which raw data are processed and transformed into information that would be beneficial for user strategic thinking.

Data are collected and examined to respond to questions, evaluate hypotheses or contradict theories. It is a tool for analyzing, transforming, modeling, and arranging data with useful knowledge, to assist in decision-making and methods, encompassing various strategies, and is used in different fields of business, research, and social science.

Geothermal Engineer

Individuals who opt for a career as geothermal engineers are the professionals involved in the processing of geothermal energy. The responsibilities of geothermal engineers may vary depending on the workplace location. Those who work in fields design facilities to process and distribute geothermal energy. They oversee the functioning of machinery used in the field.

Remote Sensing Technician

Individuals who opt for a career as a remote sensing technician possess unique personalities. Remote sensing analysts seem to be rational human beings, they are strong, independent, persistent, sincere, realistic and resourceful. Some of them are analytical as well, which means they are intelligent, introspective and inquisitive. 

Remote sensing scientists use remote sensing technology to support scientists in fields such as community planning, flight planning or the management of natural resources. Analysing data collected from aircraft, satellites or ground-based platforms using statistical analysis software, image analysis software or Geographic Information Systems (GIS) is a significant part of their work. Do you want to learn how to become remote sensing technician? There's no need to be concerned; we've devised a simple remote sensing technician career path for you. Scroll through the pages and read.

Geotechnical engineer

The role of geotechnical engineer starts with reviewing the projects needed to define the required material properties. The work responsibilities are followed by a site investigation of rock, soil, fault distribution and bedrock properties on and below an area of interest. The investigation is aimed to improve the ground engineering design and determine their engineering properties that include how they will interact with, on or in a proposed construction. 

The role of geotechnical engineer in mining includes designing and determining the type of foundations, earthworks, and or pavement subgrades required for the intended man-made structures to be made. Geotechnical engineering jobs are involved in earthen and concrete dam construction projects, working under a range of normal and extreme loading conditions. 

Cartographer

How fascinating it is to represent the whole world on just a piece of paper or a sphere. With the help of maps, we are able to represent the real world on a much smaller scale. Individuals who opt for a career as a cartographer are those who make maps. But, cartography is not just limited to maps, it is about a mixture of art , science , and technology. As a cartographer, not only you will create maps but use various geodetic surveys and remote sensing systems to measure, analyse, and create different maps for political, cultural or educational purposes.

Budget Analyst

Budget analysis, in a nutshell, entails thoroughly analyzing the details of a financial budget. The budget analysis aims to better understand and manage revenue. Budget analysts assist in the achievement of financial targets, the preservation of profitability, and the pursuit of long-term growth for a business. Budget analysts generally have a bachelor's degree in accounting, finance, economics, or a closely related field. Knowledge of Financial Management is of prime importance in this career.

Product Manager

A Product Manager is a professional responsible for product planning and marketing. He or she manages the product throughout the Product Life Cycle, gathering and prioritising the product. A product manager job description includes defining the product vision and working closely with team members of other departments to deliver winning products.  

Underwriter

An underwriter is a person who assesses and evaluates the risk of insurance in his or her field like mortgage, loan, health policy, investment, and so on and so forth. The underwriter career path does involve risks as analysing the risks means finding out if there is a way for the insurance underwriter jobs to recover the money from its clients. If the risk turns out to be too much for the company then in the future it is an underwriter who will be held accountable for it. Therefore, one must carry out his or her job with a lot of attention and diligence.

Finance Executive

Operations manager.

Individuals in the operations manager jobs are responsible for ensuring the efficiency of each department to acquire its optimal goal. They plan the use of resources and distribution of materials. The operations manager's job description includes managing budgets, negotiating contracts, and performing administrative tasks.

Bank Probationary Officer (PO)

Investment director.

An investment director is a person who helps corporations and individuals manage their finances. They can help them develop a strategy to achieve their goals, including paying off debts and investing in the future. In addition, he or she can help individuals make informed decisions.

Welding Engineer

Welding Engineer Job Description: A Welding Engineer work involves managing welding projects and supervising welding teams. He or she is responsible for reviewing welding procedures, processes and documentation. A career as Welding Engineer involves conducting failure analyses and causes on welding issues. 

Transportation Planner

A career as Transportation Planner requires technical application of science and technology in engineering, particularly the concepts, equipment and technologies involved in the production of products and services. In fields like land use, infrastructure review, ecological standards and street design, he or she considers issues of health, environment and performance. A Transportation Planner assigns resources for implementing and designing programmes. He or she is responsible for assessing needs, preparing plans and forecasts and compliance with regulations.

An expert in plumbing is aware of building regulations and safety standards and works to make sure these standards are upheld. Testing pipes for leakage using air pressure and other gauges, and also the ability to construct new pipe systems by cutting, fitting, measuring and threading pipes are some of the other more involved aspects of plumbing. Individuals in the plumber career path are self-employed or work for a small business employing less than ten people, though some might find working for larger entities or the government more desirable.

Construction Manager

Individuals who opt for a career as construction managers have a senior-level management role offered in construction firms. Responsibilities in the construction management career path are assigning tasks to workers, inspecting their work, and coordinating with other professionals including architects, subcontractors, and building services engineers.

Urban Planner

Urban Planning careers revolve around the idea of developing a plan to use the land optimally, without affecting the environment. Urban planning jobs are offered to those candidates who are skilled in making the right use of land to distribute the growing population, to create various communities. 

Urban planning careers come with the opportunity to make changes to the existing cities and towns. They identify various community needs and make short and long-term plans accordingly.

Highway Engineer

Highway Engineer Job Description:  A Highway Engineer is a civil engineer who specialises in planning and building thousands of miles of roads that support connectivity and allow transportation across the country. He or she ensures that traffic management schemes are effectively planned concerning economic sustainability and successful implementation.

Environmental Engineer

Individuals who opt for a career as an environmental engineer are construction professionals who utilise the skills and knowledge of biology, soil science, chemistry and the concept of engineering to design and develop projects that serve as solutions to various environmental problems. 

Naval Architect

A Naval Architect is a professional who designs, produces and repairs safe and sea-worthy surfaces or underwater structures. A Naval Architect stays involved in creating and designing ships, ferries, submarines and yachts with implementation of various principles such as gravity, ideal hull form, buoyancy and stability. 

Orthotist and Prosthetist

Orthotists and Prosthetists are professionals who provide aid to patients with disabilities. They fix them to artificial limbs (prosthetics) and help them to regain stability. There are times when people lose their limbs in an accident. In some other occasions, they are born without a limb or orthopaedic impairment. Orthotists and prosthetists play a crucial role in their lives with fixing them to assistive devices and provide mobility.

Veterinary Doctor

Pathologist.

A career in pathology in India is filled with several responsibilities as it is a medical branch and affects human lives. The demand for pathologists has been increasing over the past few years as people are getting more aware of different diseases. Not only that, but an increase in population and lifestyle changes have also contributed to the increase in a pathologist’s demand. The pathology careers provide an extremely huge number of opportunities and if you want to be a part of the medical field you can consider being a pathologist. If you want to know more about a career in pathology in India then continue reading this article.

Speech Therapist

Gynaecologist.

Gynaecology can be defined as the study of the female body. The job outlook for gynaecology is excellent since there is evergreen demand for one because of their responsibility of dealing with not only women’s health but also fertility and pregnancy issues. Although most women prefer to have a women obstetrician gynaecologist as their doctor, men also explore a career as a gynaecologist and there are ample amounts of male doctors in the field who are gynaecologists and aid women during delivery and childbirth. 

An oncologist is a specialised doctor responsible for providing medical care to patients diagnosed with cancer. He or she uses several therapies to control the cancer and its effect on the human body such as chemotherapy, immunotherapy, radiation therapy and biopsy. An oncologist designs a treatment plan based on a pathology report after diagnosing the type of cancer and where it is spreading inside the body.

Audiologist

The audiologist career involves audiology professionals who are responsible to treat hearing loss and proactively preventing the relevant damage. Individuals who opt for a career as an audiologist use various testing strategies with the aim to determine if someone has a normal sensitivity to sounds or not. After the identification of hearing loss, a hearing doctor is required to determine which sections of the hearing are affected, to what extent they are affected, and where the wound causing the hearing loss is found. As soon as the hearing loss is identified, the patients are provided with recommendations for interventions and rehabilitation such as hearing aids, cochlear implants, and appropriate medical referrals. While audiology is a branch of science that studies and researches hearing, balance, and related disorders.

Hospital Administrator

The hospital Administrator is in charge of organising and supervising the daily operations of medical services and facilities. This organising includes managing of organisation’s staff and its members in service, budgets, service reports, departmental reporting and taking reminders of patient care and services.

For an individual who opts for a career as an actor, the primary responsibility is to completely speak to the character he or she is playing and to persuade the crowd that the character is genuine by connecting with them and bringing them into the story. This applies to significant roles and littler parts, as all roles join to make an effective creation. Here in this article, we will discuss how to become an actor in India, actor exams, actor salary in India, and actor jobs. 

Individuals who opt for a career as acrobats create and direct original routines for themselves, in addition to developing interpretations of existing routines. The work of circus acrobats can be seen in a variety of performance settings, including circus, reality shows, sports events like the Olympics, movies and commercials. Individuals who opt for a career as acrobats must be prepared to face rejections and intermittent periods of work. The creativity of acrobats may extend to other aspects of the performance. For example, acrobats in the circus may work with gym trainers, celebrities or collaborate with other professionals to enhance such performance elements as costume and or maybe at the teaching end of the career.

Video Game Designer

Career as a video game designer is filled with excitement as well as responsibilities. A video game designer is someone who is involved in the process of creating a game from day one. He or she is responsible for fulfilling duties like designing the character of the game, the several levels involved, plot, art and similar other elements. Individuals who opt for a career as a video game designer may also write the codes for the game using different programming languages.

Depending on the video game designer job description and experience they may also have to lead a team and do the early testing of the game in order to suggest changes and find loopholes.

Radio Jockey

Radio Jockey is an exciting, promising career and a great challenge for music lovers. If you are really interested in a career as radio jockey, then it is very important for an RJ to have an automatic, fun, and friendly personality. If you want to get a job done in this field, a strong command of the language and a good voice are always good things. Apart from this, in order to be a good radio jockey, you will also listen to good radio jockeys so that you can understand their style and later make your own by practicing.

A career as radio jockey has a lot to offer to deserving candidates. If you want to know more about a career as radio jockey, and how to become a radio jockey then continue reading the article.

Choreographer

The word “choreography" actually comes from Greek words that mean “dance writing." Individuals who opt for a career as a choreographer create and direct original dances, in addition to developing interpretations of existing dances. A Choreographer dances and utilises his or her creativity in other aspects of dance performance. For example, he or she may work with the music director to select music or collaborate with other famous choreographers to enhance such performance elements as lighting, costume and set design.

Videographer

Multimedia specialist.

A multimedia specialist is a media professional who creates, audio, videos, graphic image files, computer animations for multimedia applications. He or she is responsible for planning, producing, and maintaining websites and applications. 

Social Media Manager

A career as social media manager involves implementing the company’s or brand’s marketing plan across all social media channels. Social media managers help in building or improving a brand’s or a company’s website traffic, build brand awareness, create and implement marketing and brand strategy. Social media managers are key to important social communication as well.

Copy Writer

In a career as a copywriter, one has to consult with the client and understand the brief well. A career as a copywriter has a lot to offer to deserving candidates. Several new mediums of advertising are opening therefore making it a lucrative career choice. Students can pursue various copywriter courses such as Journalism , Advertising , Marketing Management . Here, we have discussed how to become a freelance copywriter, copywriter career path, how to become a copywriter in India, and copywriting career outlook. 

Careers in journalism are filled with excitement as well as responsibilities. One cannot afford to miss out on the details. As it is the small details that provide insights into a story. Depending on those insights a journalist goes about writing a news article. A journalism career can be stressful at times but if you are someone who is passionate about it then it is the right choice for you. If you want to know more about the media field and journalist career then continue reading this article.

For publishing books, newspapers, magazines and digital material, editorial and commercial strategies are set by publishers. Individuals in publishing career paths make choices about the markets their businesses will reach and the type of content that their audience will be served. Individuals in book publisher careers collaborate with editorial staff, designers, authors, and freelance contributors who develop and manage the creation of content.

In a career as a vlogger, one generally works for himself or herself. However, once an individual has gained viewership there are several brands and companies that approach them for paid collaboration. It is one of those fields where an individual can earn well while following his or her passion. 

Ever since internet costs got reduced the viewership for these types of content has increased on a large scale. Therefore, a career as a vlogger has a lot to offer. If you want to know more about the Vlogger eligibility, roles and responsibilities then continue reading the article. 

Individuals in the editor career path is an unsung hero of the news industry who polishes the language of the news stories provided by stringers, reporters, copywriters and content writers and also news agencies. Individuals who opt for a career as an editor make it more persuasive, concise and clear for readers. In this article, we will discuss the details of the editor's career path such as how to become an editor in India, editor salary in India and editor skills and qualities.

Linguistic meaning is related to language or Linguistics which is the study of languages. A career as a linguistic meaning, a profession that is based on the scientific study of language, and it's a very broad field with many specialities. Famous linguists work in academia, researching and teaching different areas of language, such as phonetics (sounds), syntax (word order) and semantics (meaning). 

Other researchers focus on specialities like computational linguistics, which seeks to better match human and computer language capacities, or applied linguistics, which is concerned with improving language education. Still, others work as language experts for the government, advertising companies, dictionary publishers and various other private enterprises. Some might work from home as freelance linguists. Philologist, phonologist, and dialectician are some of Linguist synonym. Linguists can study French , German , Italian . 

Public Relation Executive

Travel journalist.

The career of a travel journalist is full of passion, excitement and responsibility. Journalism as a career could be challenging at times, but if you're someone who has been genuinely enthusiastic about all this, then it is the best decision for you. Travel journalism jobs are all about insightful, artfully written, informative narratives designed to cover the travel industry. Travel Journalist is someone who explores, gathers and presents information as a news article.

Quality Controller

A quality controller plays a crucial role in an organisation. He or she is responsible for performing quality checks on manufactured products. He or she identifies the defects in a product and rejects the product. 

A quality controller records detailed information about products with defects and sends it to the supervisor or plant manager to take necessary actions to improve the production process.

Production Manager

Merchandiser.

A QA Lead is in charge of the QA Team. The role of QA Lead comes with the responsibility of assessing services and products in order to determine that he or she meets the quality standards. He or she develops, implements and manages test plans. 

Metallurgical Engineer

A metallurgical engineer is a professional who studies and produces materials that bring power to our world. He or she extracts metals from ores and rocks and transforms them into alloys, high-purity metals and other materials used in developing infrastructure, transportation and healthcare equipment. 

Azure Administrator

An Azure Administrator is a professional responsible for implementing, monitoring, and maintaining Azure Solutions. He or she manages cloud infrastructure service instances and various cloud servers as well as sets up public and private cloud systems. 

AWS Solution Architect

An AWS Solution Architect is someone who specializes in developing and implementing cloud computing systems. He or she has a good understanding of the various aspects of cloud computing and can confidently deploy and manage their systems. He or she troubleshoots the issues and evaluates the risk from the third party. 

Computer Programmer

Careers in computer programming primarily refer to the systematic act of writing code and moreover include wider computer science areas. The word 'programmer' or 'coder' has entered into practice with the growing number of newly self-taught tech enthusiasts. Computer programming careers involve the use of designs created by software developers and engineers and transforming them into commands that can be implemented by computers. These commands result in regular usage of social media sites, word-processing applications and browsers.

ITSM Manager

Information security manager.

Individuals in the information security manager career path involves in overseeing and controlling all aspects of computer security. The IT security manager job description includes planning and carrying out security measures to protect the business data and information from corruption, theft, unauthorised access, and deliberate attack 

Business Intelligence Developer

Applications for admissions are open..

JEE Main Important Chemistry formulas

As per latest 2024 syllabus. Chemistry formulas, equations, & laws of class 11 & 12th chapters

Aakash iACST Scholarship Test 2024

Get up to 90% scholarship on NEET, JEE & Foundation courses

Resonance Coaching

Enroll in Resonance Coaching for success in JEE/NEET exams

ALLEN JEE Exam Prep

Start your JEE preparation with ALLEN

NEET 2024 Most scoring concepts

Just Study 32% of the NEET syllabus and Score upto 100% marks

JEE Main high scoring chapters and topics

As per latest 2024 syllabus. Study 40% syllabus and score upto 100% marks in JEE

Everything about Education

Latest updates, Exclusive Content, Webinars and more.

Download Careers360 App's

Regular exam updates, QnA, Predictors, College Applications & E-books now on your Mobile

Cetifications

We Appeared in

If you're seeing this message, it means we're having trouble loading external resources on our website.

If you're behind a web filter, please make sure that the domains *.kastatic.org and *.kasandbox.org are unblocked.

To log in and use all the features of Khan Academy, please enable JavaScript in your browser.

High school biology - NGSS

Course: high school biology - ngss   >   unit 9, creative thinking in science: exploring biodiversity.

• Biodiversity
• Understand: biodiversity

How many species are there?

What is creative thinking, let’s use creative thinking to answer the question.

• First, try breaking the question down into smaller, more manageable questions. For example, you might list different types of ecosystems on each continent and estimate species numbers for each.
• To help with your estimates, draw on your own knowledge. Think about the ecosystem outside your door. Or, think of one that you have visited, such as a local or national park. How might you determine the number of species there?
• Try turning off the “error-checker” part of your brain. Let yourself come up with as many ideas as you can. There are no wrong answers. It’s the process of thinking through the problem that is important.

What is your estimate?

• How many species did you estimate to be on Earth?
• How did you arrive at that number?
• Did any tricky issues come up as you worked out your estimate?
• What assumptions or limitations did you have to make?

Let’s get visual

Want to join the conversation.

• Upvote Button navigates to signup page
• Downvote Button navigates to signup page
• Flag Button navigates to signup page

• Reference Manager
• Simple TEXT file

People also looked at

Review article, what is marine biodiversity towards common concepts and their implications for assessing biodiversity status.

• 1 SALT Lofoten AS, Svolvær, Norway
• 2 Arctic R&D Department, Akvaplan-niva, Tromsø, Norway
• 3 NIVA Denmark Water Research, Copenhagen, Denmark
• 4 MariLim Aquatic Research GmbH, Schönkirchen, Germany
• 5 University of Bordeaux, UMR EPOC, Pessac, France
• 6 Marine Research Division, AZTI Tecnalia, Pasaia, Spain
• 7 Department of Bioscience, Aarhus University, Roskilde, Denmark
• 8 Institute of Estuarine and Coastal Studies, University of Hull, Hull, UK
• 9 NIOZ Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research, Yerseke, Netherlands
• 10 Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique/Université Caen Normandie, BOREA, Caen, France

Biodiversity' is one of the most common keywords used in environmental sciences, spanning from research to management, nature conservation, and consultancy. Despite this, our understanding of the underlying concepts varies greatly, between and within disciplines as well as among the scientists themselves. Biodiversity can refer to descriptions or assessments of the status and condition of all or selected groups of organisms, from the genetic variability, to the species, populations, communities, and ecosystems. However, a concept of biodiversity also must encompass understanding the interactions and functions on all levels from individuals up to the whole ecosystem, including changes related to natural and anthropogenic environmental pressures. While biodiversity as such is an abstract and relative concept rooted in the spatial domain, it is central to most international, European, and national governance initiatives aimed at protecting the marine environment. These rely on status assessments of biodiversity which typically require numerical targets and specific reference values, to allow comparison in space and/or time, often in association with some external structuring factors such as physical and biogeochemical conditions. Given that our ability to apply and interpret such assessments requires a solid conceptual understanding of marine biodiversity, here we define this and show how the abstract concept can and needs to be interpreted and subsequently applied in biodiversity assessments.

Introduction

The term “biodiversity”, first used almost three decades ago as a derivative of “biological diversity” ( Wilson, 1985 , 1988 ) today is one of the most often cited terms in both ecological research and environmental management and conservation (i.e., 141,214 papers in ISI Web of Science, as consulted on 27th April 2016). However, its precise definition and our understanding of the concept varies widely both between and within disciplines. Biodiversity is recognized to encompass “. 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.” ( CBD, 1992 ). The elements of biodiversity are fundamental properties of an ecosystem, and, in the marine realm, these encompass all life forms, including the environments they inhabit, and at scales from genes and species to ecosystems (see Wilson, 1988 ; Boero, 2010 ). Biodiversity can be described as an abstract aggregated property of those ecosystem components ( Bengtsson, 1998 ) and can relate to the structure or function of the community where structure relates to the system at one time whereas functioning relates to rate processes ( Gray and Elliott, 2009 ). The structural aspect is represented by the various marine life-forms, ranging from the smallest prokaryote to the largest mammal, and inhabiting some of the most extreme environments. These species exhibit a diversity that probably exceeds that found in terrestrial environments ( Heip, 1998 , 2003 ). The functional aspect is represented by the relationships among and between these marine organisms and the environments they inhabit, and is defined in terms of rates of ecological processes ( Strong et al., 2015 ); most notably they include physiological processes, predator-prey relationships, trophic webs, competition, and resource partitioning. These functions vary on both temporal and spatial scales ( Solan et al., 2006 ), and include some of the most important ecosystem services, including oxygen provisioning, CO 2 sequestration, and re-mineralization of nutrients ( Duarte and Cebrian, 1996 ; Costanza et al., 1997 ; van den Belt and Costanza, 2012 ). Both structural and functional elements contributing to biodiversity play a fundamental role in maintaining and defining healthy marine systems ( Selig et al., 2013 ).

In essence, the marine ecosystem is comprised of three interlinked processes ( Gray and Elliott, 2009 ). Firstly, the physico-chemical system creates a set of fundamental niches (most often the water column and substratum) which then are colonized by organisms according to their environmental tolerances—these may be termed environment-biology relationships. Secondly, the organisms interact with each other in, for example, predator-prey interactions, competition, recruitment, feeding, and mutualism—these are biology-biology relationships. Thirdly, the resulting ecology has the ability to complete the cycle with feedback loops and modify the physico-chemical system through bioturbation, space or material removal or change, bio-engineering, for example; these may be termed biology-environment relationships. Superimposed on these three systems are anthropogenic influences which then perturb the systems.

Human activities produce a range of pressures on marine systems, some of which may lead to irreversible changes (e.g., deyoung et al., 2008 ; Elliott et al., 2015 ). This may have immediate consequences for patterns of biodiversity and consequently for the critical ecosystem services they provide ( Costanza et al., 1997 , 2014 ; De Groot et al., 2002 , 2010 ). Those ecosystem services can be grouped into provisioning, regulating, supporting and cultural ones which, after adding human complementary assets, in turn lead to societal benefits ( Turner and Schaafsma, 2015 ).

In this context, the European Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) requires Member States to achieve Good Environmental Status (GES) ( European Commission, 2008 ). The directive comprises 11 qualitative descriptors of GES, of which biological diversity is the first, but most if not all of the others can be considered to refer to some part of biodiversity in its broad sense, assuming we also consider habitats and their condition as being within the term; indeed it can be assumed that if the biodiversity descriptor has been satisfied then by definition all others are satisfactory and vice versa ( Borja et al., 2013 ). In order to know whether the goal of GES has been achieved, an assessment needs to be performed that measures the current environmental status, hence this involves quantifying the abstract ecosystem feature biodiversity. For this, the European Commission has defined a number of GES criteria and indicators that represent and quantify various aspects of environmental status and biodiversity ( European Commission, 2010 ). The available indicators in Europe, for the MSFD implementation, have been recently collated ( Teixeira et al., 2016 ), and a method to select the most adequate has been proposed ( Queiros et al., 2016 ). Then, some of them have been used in assessing the environmental status across regional seas ( Uusitalo et al., 2016 ).

It is axiomatic that one cannot manage a system unless it can be measured and those measures require to be SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic, and Time-bounded) otherwise it is not possible to determine whether management has achieved the desired result ( Elliott, 2011 ). Hence the importance of quantitative indicators but these must be comparatively simple if they are to be operational ( Rombouts et al., 2013 ; Borja et al., 2016 ), although many of these overlap, and such redundancies can compromise the efficiency and accuracy of assessments ( Berg et al., 2015 ). The recent trend toward using long lists of indicators for an integrative assessment increases the risk of such overlaps ( Teixeira et al., 2016 ). There are many potential combinations of study approaches and thus, before compiling the indicators, any large-scale or comparative assessment of biodiversity first requires a unified approach and a workable conceptual understanding of biodiversity.

Given the inherent complexity of biodiversity and the services which the ecosystems provide as a consequence of their biodiversity (see, for example, Heip, 2003 ; Bartkowski et al., 2015 ; Farnsworth et al., 2015 ), it is imperative to depict these into one or more simple conceptual models. There are many ways to view marine systems, depending on the questions asked, the management goals set and typically, as with any complex system, disaggregating the various levels of complexity allows us to better understand each of the components and their major interactions ( Brooks et al., 2016 ). Consequently, an assessment of biodiversity used to answer a specific question will benefit from a set of conceptual models which together represent the various aspects of biodiversity. Together, these models provide a multi-faceted view of biodiversity and help users to identify the necessary elements to include in an environmental assessment by focusing on the aspects of biodiversity most relevant to the specific question and goal.

A common conceptual framework on marine biodiversity is presented here to facilitate integrative assessment of environmental status and implementation of the relevant legislation. We present a context-driven, multi-faceted view on biodiversity that will enable selection of the appropriate assessment elements and indicators. The framework is required to implement and further develop policies and practice to maintain biodiversity in the context of the sustainable management of human activities.

Conceptual Views of Biodiversity

Marine biodiversity is an aggregation of highly inter-connected ecosystem components or features, encompassing all levels of biological organization from genes, species, populations to ecosystems, with the diversity of each level having structural and functional attributes (Table 1 ). Further, marine biodiversity, or any of its components, can be assessed at various temporal or spatial scales. A conceptual model of marine biodiversity and its interpretation therefore depends on the questions being asked, which of the different components are emphasized, and the information and understanding available, especially of the connectivity and feedbacks in the system. By definition, this involves the implicit understanding that the components are all part of a larger and inter-linked system, where changes in one element inevitably will produce knock-on effects elsewhere ( Gamfeldt et al., 2015 ). These may be regarded as bottom-up processes, causing change from the cell to the ecosystem and from the physicochemical system to the landscape (“seascape”) system. Similarly, they can be regarded as the responses in a top-down system focusing on the upper level (seascape and ecosystem) which is often the end-point of marine management and the focus of the current review. Accordingly, this review does not specifically address genetic, molecular, physiological, biochemical, population, and size-biomass-spectrum aspects of biodiversity ( Zacharius and Roff, 2000 ; Kenchington, 2003 ; Palumbi, 2003 ; Gray and Elliott, 2009 ), as these are both intrinsic and implicit aspects within the concept of biodiversity, whichever viewpoint is emphasized. We thus specifically cover only the upper levels (Table 1 , bold entries), but retain the understanding of the multi-level complexity within these.

Table 1. Structural and functional biodiversity examples across levels of biological organization (topics focused on in the current paper in bold) (extensively modified from Zacharius and Roff, 2000 ) .

Hence modeling such a complex system with a view to marine management requires (i) pragmatic simplifications through disaggregation of the elements into various conceptual viewpoints, followed by (ii) a context-driven re-aggregation of the necessary components. We here provide three illustrative examples of such conceptual upper-level views on marine biodiversity, where the information retrieved is restricted to that relevant to the main focus, or viewpoint (Figure 1 ). The first focuses on structural aspects using a classical taxonomic approach to biodiversity (structural taxonomic biodiversity). The second focuses on the functional aspects of biodiversity (functional ecosystem biodiversity), and the third illustrates food-webs as one of the most used types of a combined view on both structural and functional aspects of biodiversity (food-web biodiversity). These examples only capture parts of the full complexity of biodiversity (Table 1 ) but are the most commonly found in specific user-driven contexts.

Figure 1. Schematic illustration of a pragmatic simplification of marine biodiversity, where a restricted extent of information is selected depending on the relevant viewpoints and questions asked . Base image courtesy of Iaroslav Lazunov, http://vectorboom.com/

Structural Taxonomic Biodiversity

Since the establishment of the hierarchical system of binomial nomenclature ( Linné, 1735 ), a major focus of biological studies has been to categorize observed organisms into taxonomic units, and to describe new species as they are discovered. Quantitative taxonomic data sets are a useful tool in environmental assessments, with typical indicators being species (taxon) richness, and population abundance and biomass within a place, between areas or over time. This is especially important in nature conservation planning ( Sarkar and Margules, 2002 ), notably because habitat destruction is a major driver of species extinctions, particularly those with narrow distribution ranges ( Pimm et al., 2014 ), such that adequate knowledge of the structural taxonomic biodiversity of a particular area will help to preserve its endemic species. A taxonomic inventory and the associated habitats and their changes in space and time then becomes central to environmental impact assessments ( Pearson and Rosenberg, 1978 ; Olsgard and Gray, 1995 ; Rosenberg et al., 2001 ; Borja et al., 2003 ), studies of marine protected areas ( Klein et al., 2015 ) and the compliance with marine diversity and ecosystem health governance instruments such as the EC Habitats Directive (e.g., Boyes and Elliott, 2014 ).

The EU MSFD addresses biodiversity components within two main categories: (i) main species groups, and (ii) habitats and their associated communities (habitat diversity and mosaics) (see Cochrane et al., 2010 ; Hummel et al., 2015 ). The main species-level groups include mammals, birds, fish, cephalopods, and reptiles. Within the marine habitats, water-column communities comprise pelagic microbes, phyto- and zooplankton, whereas seafloor communities encompass benthic micro, macro- and mega- fauna as well as primary producers such as seagrasses and macroalgae. In addition, other species such as those included under the European Union legislation or international conventions, charismatic or non-indigenous species and genetically distinct forms (varieties or subspecies) of native species may be included, depending on the particular assessment area and questions being addresses. In the MSFD, the categories for birds, fish, and mammals are further sub-divided into main functional categories, mostly based on their feeding and/or depth preferences (Table 2 ). This, however, introduces a functional division into the otherwise purely structural view.

Table 2. Predominant functional and/or feeding groups within the main biodiversity components for application in assessment of motile biodiversity components .

The predominant seabed and water column habitat types can effectively be characterized in terms of a pragmatic selection of the major categories under the European Nature Information System (EUNIS) scheme ( Cochrane et al., 2010 ; Galparsoro et al., 2012 , 2015 ) (Table 3 ). The biological communities associated with those habitats can then be addressed; thus extending the conceptual view from purely taxonomic entities to higher-level structural aggregations of taxa as part of their biotope ( Olenin and Ducrotoy, 2006 ) (Figure 2 ). This structural view potentially omits the functional attributes or traits of the populations and communities associated with habitats although some of the structural attributes may be regarded as surrogates (proxies) for functional ones ( Gray and Elliott, 2009 ). For example, the benthic communities can be characterized in terms of proportional representations of different traits, feeding guilds, motility, burrowing activities etc. ( Bremner et al., 2006a , b ; Cochrane et al., 2012 ) but these have not previously been the main focus of structural biodiversity; most methods have centered on the plethora of quantitative means of defining benthic community structure ( Gray and Elliott, 2009 ). However, recognizing and measuring functional diversity within the benthos also has become of increasing importance from a management perspective ( Reiss et al., 2015 ).

Table 3. Predominant habitat types for application in assessment of Descriptor 1 .

Figure 2. Conceptual illustration of the biodiversity components associated with pelagic and seafloor habitats . Indicators in diamond-shaped boxes refer to Descriptors (D) and criteria (digits) of the MSFD ( European Commission, 2010 ).

A high biodiversity, including species richness, may enhance ecosystem processes and promote long-term stability by buffering, or insuring, against environmental fluctuations ( Yachi and Loreau, 1999 ; Loreau, 2000 ). Conversely, a loss of biodiversity may impair ecosystem functioning, and thus also the services provided ( Loreau and Hector, 2001 ). At least in the marine realm, habitat structure obviously influences the number of niches available for colonization and thus can indicate the number of types (species, traits, etc.) which can be supported within that habitat. Other community properties such as biomass and abundance are more dependent on ecological interactions such as predator-prey links and recruitment ( Gray and Elliott, 2009 ). This biodiversity-stability relation is complex as it firstly requires a clear definition of what is meant by ecosystem temporal (dynamic) stability and/or the ability to withstand change through resistance and resilience (see McCann, 2000 ; Tett et al., 2013 ). Secondly, it requires understanding how biological diversity will enhance ecosystem stability ( McCann, 2000 ; Hooper et al., 2005 ; Strong et al., 2015 ). There is a wealth of theoretical and empirical data to support the contention that biodiversity (numbers of distinct species, but also functional diversity) enhances both ecosystem productivity and its resistance to perturbation (e.g., Isbell et al., 2015a , b ; Wang and Loreau, 2016 ). Habitats and species diversity are intrinsically intertwined, and baseline diversity is highly variable. For example, species diversity in seagrass meadows is greater than in adjacent non-vegetated areas ( Hemminga and Duarte, 2000 ), but the lack of seagrass diversity makes these habitats more vulnerable to specific perturbations such as the Wasting disease and storms ( Orth et al., 2006 ). However, this is not always the case as some lower diversity ecosystems, such as estuaries, have a high resilience conferred by the high tolerances and adaptability of the component species, a feature termed environmental homeostasis ( Elliott and Quintino, 2007 ).

While structural taxonomic biodiversity may enhance ecosystem stability, it is not the structural biodiversity as such that causes stability, but the individual species and their role in the ecosystem. In order to understand which species or species groups are the major players within marine ecosystems and how they relate to the functioning of the ecosystem, the understanding of biodiversity would have less emphasis on recording all the taxa, but rather on including the main species within the different functional or feeding groups. This implies a redundancy in the ecosystem, the so-called “rivet hypothesis” ( Gray and Elliott, 2009 ). This also emphasizes the need for a functional view of biodiversity.

Functional Ecosystem Biodiversity

By interpreting biodiversity from an ecosystem (top-down) entry point, the focus shifts from structural to functional aspects. In order to construct a simple-to-use view, it is necessary to distinguish between the terms functions and processes (Figure 3 ; rectangular and rounded boxes, respectively) of which there are three main categories of ecosystem functions : (i) Primary production ; (ii) Secondary production (spanning from the herbivorous primary consumers to the top predators), and (iii) Nutrient cycling . Each of these major functions are carried out through many inter-linked processes , such as photosynthesis, particle flux (sedimentation, mixing, and resuspension) and consumption/respiration. Export of energy from the marine system to humans and birds through selective biomass extraction also is considered a process as is the re-introduction of nutrients through effluents/run-off and guano.

Figure 3. Conceptual illustration of the major functions within marine ecosystems, as a basis for structuring ecosystem-orientated biodiversity assessments . Note that functions such as habitat provision, reproduction, etc., are implicit within the concept.

Documenting the biodiversity status of these three major ecosystem functions/processes, through which they are carried out, requires measurable parameters and indicators (diamond-shaped boxes in Figure 3 ). Most of the indicators currently, or potentially, used in environmental assessment are regarded as surrogates (proxies) of the three main ecosystem functions (see Uusitalo et al., 2016 ), but the extent to which these reflect the processes is variable, and often just reflect structural elements of the ecosystem. Measuring the abundance and/or biomass of microalgae, the content or concentration of chlorophyll or various proxies such as fluorescence is commonly used to represent the amount of primary producers in the system ( Steele, 1962 ), even if these indicators do not always directly measure photosynthesis. Similarly, for nutrient cycling, appropriate indicators may include the abundance or biomass of microbes or the conservative or otherwise behavior of the different nutrient forms, but this may not give sufficient knowledge of microbial activity ( Caruso et al., 2015 , 2016 ). Secondary production, on the other hand, is more tangible, and there exist many indicators that are proxies for quantifying the distribution, population dynamics, abundance, and condition of the various categories of organisms, both in terms of functional traits and population and taxonomic composition ( Diaz et al., 2004 ; Rice et al., 2012 ). Measuring the processes directly is somewhat more challenging because it often involves experimental approaches (for example respiration measurements), or long-term passive sampling (for example sediment traps) or repeated time-series of population dynamics, Allen-curves and biomass changes to allow production and productivity to be estimated (e.g., Crisp, 1984 ; Gray and Elliott, 2009 ), and these can be particularly time-consuming, expensive and not least of all, highly variable from daily, seasonal to annual scales ( Bolam, 2014 ; Maire et al., 2015 ).

A unified approach to a biodiversity assessment with a functional ecosystem focus would therefore start by identifying indicators for the three main functions. Most assessment programmes will not include these functions, but their existence should at least be acknowledged. From there, the key processes and taxa within each of the major functions will be identified, first in general terms, and then in detail, specific to the assessment area in question. Furthermore, it is argued that there is an increasing emphasis in marine management, from the structural ecological approach in the EU Water Framework and Habitats Directives, to the more functional approach in the MSFD ( Borja et al., 2010 ; Hering et al., 2010 ).

Food-Web Biodiversity

The food-web functional view (Figure 4 ) employs the three main ecosystem functions (primary production, secondary production and nutrient cycling) thus encompassing a range of processes (see Rombouts et al., 2013 ; Piroddi et al., 2015 ). The three ecosystem functions are carried out by various combinations of the structural components of biodiversity. Primary producers in the form of microorganisms, micro- and macroalgae as well as macrophytes (e.g., seagrasses), and including both photo- and chemosynthesis, exist in both the pelagic and benthic realms. Through the microbial loop and remineralization, microbes are responsible for the key function of nutrient cycling and make carbon available to the system ( Azam et al., 1983 ; Fenchel, 2008 ). The primary herbivorous grazers such as copepods form the link between primary production and the rest of the food-web, although these also are transported out of the strictly marine system through harvesting by seabirds and humans, as a source of omega-3 oil.

Figure 4. Conceptual illustration of a generic marine food-web .

Thus, functional indicators of nutrient cycling can operate on microbes, primary production and secondary production to zooplankton, benthos and progressively higher-order predators. The processes typically are explored using more field-experimental, research-orientated indicators although the parameters or organisms to be measured within the three ecosystem functions depends on the biodiversity characteristics of the assessment area and the management questions being addressed.

In essence, a generalized food-web assessment requires indicators to cover all the major energy flow pathways throughout the system. Indicator selection would conceivably start at the producer level, such as abundance and biomass of phytoplankton and benthic algae, and also the basal zooplankton consumers. Indicators for motile components within the pelagic habitat would cover smaller components to top predators, assessed in categories appropriate to the survey area, but essentially covering, for example: (i) krill, gelatinous plankton, and juvenile fish, (ii) squid and small pelagic fish, (iii) large pelagic-feeding fish, reptiles, and mammals such as seals and finally (iv) large benthic feeding fish and mammals such as walrus and seals. The benthic secondary producing component can be seen in terms of functional groups, from herbivores (such as grazers), carnivores which actively seek prey and scavengers which consume both living and dead remains, to surface deposit feeders which consume material deposited from the planktonic realm, and filter-feeders that operate at the sediment-water interface, feeding on both settling particles as well as re-suspended matter, the latter produced either through biological pumps or strong bottom currents.

Implications for Biodiversity Assessments

Different management questions require different starting-points for selection of measurement parameters and indicators for biodiversity assessments (Table 4 ).

Table 4. Examples of common managerial questions and the appropriate conceptual viewpoints, as starting-points for indicator selection for biodiversity assessments .

Structural Biodiversity Assessment

The structural view on biodiversity is typically used when nature conservation is the primary focus in preserving all (or at least those designated as being important) biotic components of a given ecosystem together with its characteristic abiotic features. For example, the EC Habitats Directive requires assessing the biodiversity status, especially for the conservation features for which an area was designated, by using the appropriate taxonomic and habitat quality indicators. This either ignores the functional relationships within the ecosystem or makes the assumption that the structural elements are proxies for functioning. This can have implications for the management of such conservation areas since it may require manipulating the habitats and living conditions of certain species or communities when the assessment reveals a less favorable biodiversity status. In this case, ecoengineering may be required both to recreate and restore suitable eco-hydrological functioning (Type A ecoengineering) or to use the restocking or replanting to recreate populations (Type B ecoengineering) ( Elliott et al., 2016 ). As an example, reef restoration is a measure to re-establish reef systems in places where these might have been damaged or lost. This requires the current habitat to be altered (e.g., from soft bottom to hard bottom) so it can support and promote the establishment of a new reef community. This structural change will be reflected in later biodiversity assessments and possibly document the increased biodiversity status. However, if the focus is on a structural view of biodiversity, it might not result in successful functioning and so this kind of biodiversity assessment will not be a holistic one. Hence, the context-driven approach maximizes taxonomical biodiversity but not necessarily ecosystem functioning. Although it can be assumed that biodiversity and ecosystem functioning relationships (BEF) will ensure that higher taxonomical biodiversity also produces higher ecosystem stability (in terms of resistance and resilience), there is insufficient evidence to support this assumption ( Cardinale et al., 2012 ; Strong et al., 2015 ).

Ecosystem Assessments

Most management policies and assessments world-wide aim for some kind of ecosystem approach ( Borja et al., 2008 ). The MSFD advocates an ecosystem-based approach, and many assessment and monitoring schemes exist aiming to integrate ecosystem functions and their values and services (see Atkins et al., 2011 ; Elliott, 2011 , 2013 , 2014 ; Laurila-Pant et al., 2015 ). However, as with the term biodiversity, the distinctions and uses of the terms Ecosystem Approach and Ecosystem-based management are far from consistent (see review in Borja et al., 2016 ). An Ecosystem-based management strategy acknowledges the complexity of ecosystems and in particular: (i) the need to take into account both the structural aspects (e.g., life-forms present) and the interactions among organisms (especially inter-species relations) within ecological systems, (ii) the essence of connectivity between and within communities, ecosystems, habitats and biotopes, and (iii) that humans are a part of ecosystems thereby integrating human societies within biodiversity management ( Elliott, 2011 ; Kelble et al., 2013 ; Long et al., 2015 ). This approach encompasses the structural and functional aspects of an ecosystem (its “emergent properties”) as well as, at a smaller scale, the role of given subsystems or components from this ecosystem.

To that end, ecosystem assessments tend to employ at least two views on biodiversity: The structural taxonomic and the functional ecosystem biodiversity. Both are used, or at least require to be used, in one single assessment, but require the need to keep overlaps minimal and to properly interpret the results when measures are to be taken on the basis of the assessment results. This, in turn, requires the need to interpret the resulting ecosystem status in both structural and functional ways so that managers can balance the different needs when planning management measures. As an example, Elliott (2011) proposed an ecosystem health assessment (or monitoring) programme consisting of four elements associated to the typical management cycle: (i) an analysis of main processes and structural characteristics of an ecosystem; (ii) an identification of known or potential stressors; (iii) the development of hypotheses about how those stressors may affect each part of the ecosystem, and (iv) the identification of measures of environmental quality and ecosystem health to test hypotheses. This encompasses and quantifies, from the socio-ecological system, the ecosystem services, and societal benefits approach ( Atkins et al., 2011 ; Laurila-Pant et al., 2015 ). This approach has led to an extensive series of marine assessment systems which can include both the ecological health and societal well-being, for example the global Ocean Health Index (OHI) ( Halpern et al., 2015 ; Borja et al., 2016 ).

In general, starting from the conceptual view of functional biodiversity, the clear distinction between ecosystem function and process (e.g., as proposed above) must be retained throughout the assessment and its interpretation when the terms are used to derive management actions from the indicators used to assess functions and processes. However, there is a notable lack of agreement throughout the literature regarding the terms “function” and “processes” when applied to ecosystems and their assessment; indeed the terms may be synonymous in that by definition a function is a rate process. In our functional ecosystem model, the three ecosystem functions (primary production, secondary production and nutrient cycling) together comprise holistic ecosystem functioning. These ecosystem functions are the sum of the physical, chemical and biological processes that transform and translocate energy and materials in ecosystems ( Naeem, 1998 ; Paterson et al., 2012 ; Snelgrove et al., 2014 ; Borja et al., 2016 ).

Functions, and thus inherently also the processes by which they are carried out, are central to the “ecosystem services” which the marine environment provides for its own sustainability and human benefits. As indicated above (and also see Turner and Schaafsma, 2015 ), successful structure and functioning of the physico-chemical and ecological systems can produce intermediate and final ecosystem services: (i) provisioning, (ii) regulating, (iii) supporting (or habitat), and (iv) culture and heritage ( Jax, 2005 ; De Groot et al., 2010 ). Complementary human assets are then required to extract societal benefits from such services ( Atkins et al., 2014 ). Strong et al. (2015) listed five categories of “ecosystem functions,” which also refer to processes: (i) production of biomass, (ii) (non-living) organic matter transformation, (iii) ecosystem metabolism, (iv) nutrient cycling, and (v) physical environment modification, for which they analyzed biodiversity.

Thus, there are many ways to refer to the functions and processes occurring within marine ecosystems, and in turn the services and societal benefits which they provide. Focusing our conceptual understanding of biodiversity from a functional ecosystem viewpoint on three main functions, driven by a range of processes, gives clarity about the logical basis for both selection of assessment parameters and interpretation of results. We recognize that the functions themselves are assessed by measuring some proxy of the processes, such as various qualities and attributes of the organisms which carry out those processes. With this understanding, we can select the indicators which represent the sections of the system which best address the questions asked, and at the same time retain an awareness of the information gaps which require us to extrapolate information from other measurements and to make appropriate inferences for ecosystem-scale assessments.

Food-Web Assessments

The conceptual view outlined in Figure 4 provides the basis of a holistic food-web assessment. Typically, such assessments operate with a restricted set of parameters relating to predator-prey interactions, with a focus on abundance and population structure of commercially harvested species, and often also their main prey items. For example, the MSFD Descriptor 4 (trophic relations) adopted a pragmatic conceptual simplification in approach ( Rogers et al., 2010 ; Rombouts et al., 2013 ). Two key attributes for food-webs were specified within the MSFD as: (i) energy flow in food-webs, i.e., from primary to secondary production, and (ii) structure of food-webs i.e., size and abundance of predators/prey ( Rogers et al., 2010 ). Rombouts et al. (2013) argued that three main properties of food-webs can be considered within the MSFD context: Structure, functioning and dynamics, with emphasis on the latter two and “the general principles that relate these three properties.” The MSFD Descriptor 4 indicators for food-webs, such as the reproductive success of dominant piscivorous seabirds, are very much process-based and designed to capture responses to the multiple anthropogenic pressures that can affect food-webs, the main one being selective extraction of biomass (e.g., fishing).

The structuring influence of large predators on ecosystem stability, and the potential for human impacts thereon, can be illustrated, for example, by overfishing of the Atlantic cod, Gadus morhua which caused a notable increase in alpha and beta diversity of the remaining fish communities. These became more variable during periods where the cod no longer dominated the system ( Ellingsen et al., 2015 ). This is an example of the difficulties a biodiversity concept will face when it becomes more complex. The overall assessment result will no longer be able to reflect both the structural and functional changes individually. The representability of an assessment of food-web status thus depends much on the indicators chosen and whether they are capable of capturing the “health” of the ecosystem, in terms of deviation from reference or target conditions (assuming these are in fact known and/or defined). Tett et al. (2013) emphasizes that the concept of ecosystem health is integral to management questions based on the overall assessment which thus encompasses an assessment of both biological diversity and the delivery of ecosystem services and societal benefits.

Where the aim of assessment is toward sustainable management, such as in the MSFD, or marine conservation, the selected food-web measurement parameters and indicators must focus on detecting the impacts of anthropogenic pressures ( Coll et al., 2016 ). However, for a programme to understand the overall predator-prey structure in a system, all levels of interactions should be included into the underlying view on the biodiversity as the basis of the assessment. As with all aspects of biodiversity, changes in abiotic conditions such as climatic ones will also impact food-webs and create moving baselines against which changes in biodiversity are judged ( Elliott et al., 2015 ). They are drivers for changes in species distributions, recruitment success and competition and so food-web indicators should operate at the species level (e.g., population indicators) but also at the ecosystem level when considering overall energy flow through the system.

The main practical challenge in finding fit-for-purpose food-web indicators is the variability in pressure-impact relationships on their structure and functioning. An example on how to reach a more simplified generalization is the “fishing down the food-web” rule ( Pauly et al., 1998 ). It proposes that fishing a food-web would first target larger and higher trophic level carnivorous fish and then progressively those at lower trophic levels, theoretically shortening food-webs. Thus, the mean trophic levels of consumers would be lower in an overfished food web, relative to an undisturbed one. An indicator reflecting the mean trophic level will adequately capture this aspect but other indicators will be needed when the aim of the assessment is not only to maintain sustainable fisheries, but also to preserve structural biodiversity. The corresponding conceptual view of biodiversity should be the basis of such preservation aims by including the relevant structural elements into the food-web but also assuming that such structural indicators are indeed proxies for successful functioning.

Conclusions

This review of the abstract concept of marine biodiversity is based on three conceptual views of the upper-level aspects of biodiversity (structural taxonomic, functional ecosystem-based, and food-web biodiversity). They form the basis for constructing different biodiversity assessment types, depending on the context in which the assessment is used. The conceptual views serve as simplified common denominators from which can be developed a dialogue between both scientists and managers, balancing the needs for a sound scientific foundation and the pragmatic requirements for practical management of marine systems. The examples presented in this conceptual framework and the consequences for the assessment of biodiversity lead to three conclusions which improve the applicability and value of biodiversity status assessments and management.

Firstly, marine ecosystems are considered from different perspectives given the absence of a common and single understanding of what is marine biodiversity. The way in which we view this abstract biodiversity depends on various variables where this complexity can be simplified when focusing on the structural and functional elements of biodiversity that are important for the management question to be answered. This is best done using a carefully defined set of biodiversity elements to be assessed, knowing which elements to ignore and why and what consequences this has for the subsequent biodiversity assessment. This approach will allow for a context-driven assessment, where the meaning of the assessment result is pre-defined and derived from our applied understanding of biodiversity. The result does not need a special interpretation and is tied directly to the question we want to answer.

Secondly, we use the perspectives to construct a “management-friendly” assessment: A biodiversity status of “good” or “not good” needs a context for interpretation (see Mee et al., 2008 ). This context is given by the specific conceptual view. Together, this will provide information on what is the biodiversity status and how it can be improved by managing identified problems. Only an assessment that can explain the resulting biodiversity status and give insights into how the situation can be changed following management measures is useful for management. It is the conceptual view that leads to insights and measures to be applied by management thus emphasizing the need for knowledge on the biodiversity status and where and how it requires to be improved if it is considered to be degraded.

Thirdly, be aware of the limits and degree of quantification of the assessment: Since we know what has been omitted from our conceptual view, we also know what management cannot expect to achieve. Similarly, the success of management measures and their efficacy can only be determined by quantifying the conceptual approach. A primarily structural taxonomic view of biodiversity will not lead to an assessment that points to measures improving ecosystem functions. However, the conceptual view chosen allows us to determine the limits of our understanding of biodiversity and thus the possibilities of the management measures even before the assessment has been made. If the limits are clear and can be communicated, expectations are realistic whereas unrealistic expectations may arise from an incomplete conceptual approach or false assumptions of the links between structure and functioning.

A given conceptual view can always be expanded by including more elements and shifting the focus closer to the question asked. As one example, we can include activities which create the major pathways of human pressures, the state changes they involve in the marine system and the impacts this has on society, its welfare and well-being ( Scharin et al., 2016 ; Smith et al., 2016 ). Such modifications will expand our understanding of biodiversity using the influential parameters relevant for the specific purpose of the individual biodiversity assessment.

Author Contributions

The basis for this manuscript was conceived during a pivotal discussion between SC, JA, TB, and P. Herman, Bilbao, November 2013, the first three of which produced the initial draft of the manuscript. The remaining authors each have contributed within various areas of expertise: HB, AB, JC, and HH (indicators and environmental assessments), ME (general concepts and management), NN (food webs) and PR (ecosystem functions and processes).

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

The handling Editor MM declared a collaboration with the authors and states that the process nevertheless met the standards of a fair and objective review.

Acknowledgments

This manuscript is a result of DEVOTES (DEVelopment Of innovative Tools for understanding marine biodiversity and assessing good Environmental Status) project, funded by the European Union under the 7th Framework Programme, “The Ocean of Tomorrow” Theme (grant agreement no. 308392), www.devotes-project.eu . We acknowledge the life's work of the late Prof. Carlo Heip, for leading initiatives such as BIOMARE and the MarBEF network, which have sown the seeds for this present work. Further, we thank Peter Hermann, Anne Chenuil, and Chris Lynam. We also acknowledge the other members of the MSFD TG1 group, particularly David Connor and Per Nilsson, for together developing the criteria and indicators for biodiversity, adopted by the MSFD. The lead author sincerely thanks colleagues, collaborators and clients for all the countless discussions, understandings and misunderstandings, which have given rise to this manuscript, as well as Tom Pearson for past mentoring in benthic indicators and functional traits. Finally, thanks to two reviewers, particularly Christos Arvanitides, whose constructive criticism much improved this manuscript.

Atkins, J. P., Burdon, D., Elliott, M., and Gregory, A. J. (2011). Management of the marine environment: integrating ecosystem services and societal benefits with the DPSIR framework in a systems approach. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 62, 215–226. doi: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2010.12.012

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Atkins, J. P., Burdon, D., Elliott, M., Schaafsma, M., and Turner, R. K. (2014). Coastal and marine ecosystem services. Environ. Sci . 23, 26–30.

Azam, F., Fenchel, T., Field, J. G., Gray, J. S., Meyerreil, L. A., and Thingstad, F. (1983). The ecological role of water-column microbes in the sea. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 10, 257–263. doi: 10.3354/meps010257

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Bartkowski, B., Lienhoop, N., and Hansjuergens, B. (2015). Capturing the complexity of biodiversity: a critical review of economic valuation studies of biological diversity. Ecol. Econ. 113, 1–14. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.02.023

Bengtsson, J. (1998). Which species? What kind of diversity? Which ecosystem function? Some problems in studies of relations between biodiversity and ecosystem function. Appl. Soil Ecol. 10, 191–199. doi: 10.1016/S0929-1393(98)00120-6

Berg, T., Fürhaupter, K., Teixeira, H., Uusitalo, L., and Zampoukas, N. (2015). The marine strategy framework directive and the ecosystem-based approach – pitfalls and solutions. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 96, 18–28. doi: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2015.04.050

Boero, F. (2010). The study of species in the era of biodiversity: a tale of stupidity. Diversity 2:115. doi: 10.3390/d2010115

Bolam, S. G. (2014). Macrofaunal recovery following the intertidal recharge of dredged material: a comparison of structural and functional approaches. Mar. Environ. Res. 97, 15–29. doi: 10.1016/j.marenvres.2014.01.008

Borja, A., Bricker, S. B., Dauer, D. M., Demetriades, N. T., Ferreira, J. G., Forbes, A. T., et al. (2008). Overview of integrative tools and methods in assessing ecological integrity in estuarine and coastal systems worldwide. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 56, 1519–1537. doi: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2008.07.005

Borja, A., Elliott, M., Andersen, J. H., Berg, T., Carstensen, J., Halpern, B. S., et al. (2016). Overview of integrative assessment of marine systems: the ecosystem approach in practice. Front. Mar. Sci. 3:20. doi: 10.3389/fmars.2016.00020

Borja, A., Elliott, M., Andersen, J. H., Cardoso, A. C., Carstensen, J., Ferreira, J. G., et al. (2013). Good Environmental Status of marine ecosystems: what is it and how do we know when we have attained it? Mar. Pollut. Bull. 76, 16–27. doi: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2013.08.042

Borja, A., Elliott, M., Carstensen, J., Heiskanen, A.-S., and van de Bund, W. (2010). Marine management – towards an integrated implementation of the european marine strategy framework and the water framework directives. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 60, 2175–2186. doi: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2010.09.026

Borja, A., Muxika, I., and Franco, J. (2003). The application of a Marine Biotic Index to different impact sources affecting soft-bottom benthic communities along European coasts. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 46, 835–845. doi: 10.1016/S0025-326X(03)00090-0

Boyes, S. J., and Elliott, M. (2014). Marine legislation – The ultimate ‘horrendogram’: international law, European directives & national implementation. Mar. Poll. Bull . 86, 39–47. doi: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2014.06.055

Bremner, J., Rogers, S. I., and Frid, C. L. J. (2006a). Matching biological traits to environmental conditions in marine benthic ecosystems. J. Mar. Sys. 60, 302–316. doi: 10.1016/j.jmarsys.2006.02.004

Bremner, J., Rogers, S. I., and Frid, C. L. J. (2006b). Methods for describing ecological functioning of marine benthic assemblages using biological traits analysis (BTA). Ecol. Indic. 6, 609–622. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2005.08.026

Brooks, T. M., Akçakaya, H. R., Burgess, N. D., Butchart, S. H. M., Hilton-Taylor, C., Hoffmann, M., et al. (2016). Analysing biodiversity and conservation knowledge products to support regional environmental assessments. Sci. Data 3:160007. doi: 10.1038/sdata.2016.7

Cardinale, B. J., Duffy, J. E., Gonzalez, A., Hooper, D. U., Perrings, C., Venail, P., et al. (2012). Biodiversity loss and its impact on humanity. Nature 486, 59–67. doi: 10.1038/nature11148

Caruso, G., La Ferla, R., Azzaro, M., Zoppini, A., Marino, G., Petochi, T., et al. (2015). Microbial assemblages for environmental quality assessment: knowledge, gaps and usefulness in the European Marine Strategy Framework Directive. Crit. Rev . Microbiol . 42, 883–904. doi: 10.3109/1040841X.2015.1087380

CrossRef Full Text

Caruso, G. M., Azzaro, C., Caroppo, F., Decembrini, L. S., Monticelli, M., Leonardi, G., et al. (2016). Microbial community and its potential as descriptor of environmental status. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 73, 2174–2177. doi: 10.1093/icesjms/fsw101

CBD (1992). Convention on Biological Diversity. Rio Earth Summit, 5 June 1992 . Convention on Biological Diversity.

Cochrane, S. K. J., Connor, D. W., Nilsson, P., Mitchell, I., Reker, J., Franco, J., et al. (2010). Marine Strategy Framework Directive Task Group 1 Report: Biological Diversity . EUR 24337 EN – Joint Research Centre, Luxembourg, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 110.

Cochrane, S. K. J., Pearson, T. H., Greenacre, M., Costelloe, J., Ellingsen, I. H., Dahle, S., et al. (2012). Benthic fauna and functional traits along a Polar Front transect in the Barents Sea - Advancing tools for ecosystem-scale assessments. J. Mar. Sys. 94, 204–217. doi: 10.1016/j.jmarsys.2011.12.001

Coll, M., Shannon, L. J., Kleisner, K. M., Juan-Jordá, M. J., Bundy, A., Akoglu, A. G., et al. (2016). Ecological indicators to capture the effects of fishing on biodiversity and conservation status of marine ecosystems. Ecol. Indic. 60, 947–962. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.08.048

Costanza, R., D'arge, R., De Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., et al. (1997). The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387, 235–260. doi: 10.1038/387253a0

Costanza, R., De Groot, R., Sutton, P., Van Der Ploeg, S., Anderson, S. J., Kubiszewski, I., et al. (2014). Changes in the global value of ecosystem services. Global Environ. Change 26, 152–158. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.04.002

Crisp, D. J. (1984). “Energy flow measurements,” in Methods for the Study of Marine Benthos , eds N. A. Holme and N. A. McIntyre (Oxford: Blackwell), 284–372.

De Groot, R. S., Alkemade, R., Braat, L., Hein, L., and Willemen, L. (2010). Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, management and decision making. Ecol. Complex 7, 260–272. doi: 10.1016/j.ecocom.2009.10.006

De Groot, R. S., Wilson, M. A., and Boumans, R. M. J. (2002). A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. Ecol. Econ. 41, 393–408. doi: 10.1016/S0921-8009(02)00089-7

deyoung, B., Barange, M., Beaugrand, G., Harris, R., Perry, R. I., Scheffer, M., et al. (2008). Regime shifts in marine ecosystems: detection, prediction and management. Trends Ecol. Evol. 23, 402–409. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2008.03.008

Diaz, R. J., Solan, M., and Valente, R. M. (2004). A review of approaches for classifying benthic habitats and evaluating habitat quality. J. Environ. Manag. 73, 165–181. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2004.06.004

Duarte, C. M., and Cebrian, J. (1996). The fate of marine autotrophic production. Limnol. Oceanogr. 41, 1758–1766. doi: 10.4319/lo.1996.41.8.1758

Ellingsen, K. E., Anderson, M. J., Shackell, N. L., Tveraa, T., Yoccoz, N. G., and Frank, K. T. (2015). The role of a dominant predator in shaping biodiversity over space and time in a marine ecosystem. J. Anim. Ecol. 84, 1242–1252. doi: 10.1111/1365-2656.12396

Elliott, M. (2011). Marine science and management means tackling exogenic unmanaged pressures and endogenic managed pressures – A numbered guide. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 62, 651–655. doi: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2010.11.033

Elliott, M. (2013). The 10-tenets for integrated, successful and sustainable marine management. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 74, 1–5. doi: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2013.08.001

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text

Elliott, M. (2014). Integrated marine science and management: wading through the morass. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 86, 1–4. doi: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2014.07.026

Elliott, M., Borja, A., Mcquatters-Gollop, A., Mazik, K., Birchenough, S., Andersen, J. H., et al. (2015). Force majeure: will climate change affect our ability to attain Good Environmental Status for marine biodiversity? Viewpoint. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 95, 7–27. doi: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2015.03.015

Elliott, M., Mander, L., Mazik, K., Simenstad, C., Valesini, F., Whitfield, A., et al. (2016). Ecoengineering with Ecohydrology: successes and failures in estuarine restoration. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 176, 12–35. doi: 10.1016/j.ecss.2016.04.003

Elliott, M., and Quintino, V. (2007). The estuarine quality paradox, environmental homeostasis and the difficulty of detecting anthropogenic stress in naturally stressed areas. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 54, 640–645. doi: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2007.02.003

European Commission (2008). Directive 2008/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 Establishing a Framework for Community Action in the Field of Marine Environmental Policy (Marine Strategy Framework Directive) . Official Journal of the European Union L 164/19.

European Commission (2010). Commission Decision of 1 September 2010 on Criteria and Methodological Standards on Good Environmental Status of Marine Waters (Notified Under Document C(201, 0) 5956) . Official Journal of the European Union L 232/14.

Farnsworth, K. D., Adenuga, A. H., and De Groot, R. S. (2015). The complexity of biodiversity: a biological perspective on economic valuation. Ecol. Econ. 120, 350–354. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.10.003

Fenchel, T. (2008). The microbial loop-25 years later. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 366, 99–103. doi: 10.1016/j.jembe.2008.07.013

Galparsoro, I., Connor, D. W., Borja, A., Aish, A., Amorim, P., Bajjouk, T., et al. (2012). Using EUNIS habitat classification for benthic mapping in European seas: present concerns and future needs. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 64, 2630–2638. doi: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2012.10.010

Galparsoro, I., German Rodriguez, J., Menchaca, I., Quincoces, I., Mikel Garmendia, J., and Borja, A. (2015). Benthic habitat mapping on the Basque continental shelf (SE Bay of Biscay) and its application to the European Marine Strategy Framework Directive. J. Sea Res. 100, 70–76. doi: 10.1016/j.seares.2014.09.013

Gamfeldt, L., Lefcheck, J. S., Byrnes, J. E. K., Cardinale, B. J., Duffy, J. E., and Griffin, J. N. (2015). Marine biodiversity and ecosystem functioning: what's known and what's next? Oikos 124, 252–265. doi: 10.1111/oik.01549

Gray, J. S., and Elliott, M. (2009). Ecology of Marine Sediments: from Science to Management . Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Google Scholar

Halpern, B. S., Longo, C., Lowndes, J. S., Best, B. D., Frazier, M., Katona, S. K., et al. (2015). Patterns and emerging trends in global ocean health. PLoS ONE 10:e0117863. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0117863

Heip, C. (1998). Marine biodiversity. Biofutur 179, 12–17. doi: 10.1016/S0294-3506(98)80005-7

Heip, C. (2003). “What structures Marine biodiversity and why does it vary?,” in Marine Science Frontiers for Europe , eds G. Wefer, F. Lamy, and F. Mantoura (Berlin; Heidelberg: Springer), 251–264.

Hemminga, M. A., and Duarte, C. M. (2000). Seagrass Ecology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hering, D., Borja, A., Carstensen, J., Carvalho, L., Elliott, M., Feld, C. K., et al. (2010). The European Water Framework Directive at the age of 10: a critical review of the achievements with recommendations for the future. Sci. Tot. Environ. 408, 4007–4019. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2010.05.031

Hooper, D. U., Chapin, F. S., Ewel, J. J., Hector, A., Inchausti, P., Lavorel, S., et al. (2005). Effects of biodiversity on ecosystem functioning: a consensus of current knowledge. Ecol. Monogr. 75, 3–35. doi: 10.1890/04-0922

Hummel, H., Frost, M., Juanes, J. A., Kochmann, J., Bolde, C. F. C. P., Aneiros, F., et al. (2015). A comparison of the degree of implementation of marine biodiversity indicators by European countries in relation to the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD). J. Mar. Biol. Assoc. UK. 95, 1519–1531. doi: 10.1017/S0025315415000235

ICES (2009). Report of the Working Group on Seabird Ecology (WGSE). International Council for the Exploration of the Sea. ICES CM 2009/LRC:05.

Isbell, F., Craven, D., Connolly, J., Loreau, M., Schmid, B., Beierkuhnlein, C., et al. (2015a). Biodiversity increases the resistance of ecosystem productivity to climate extremes. Nature 526, 574–577. doi: 10.1038/nature15374

Isbell, F., Tilman, D., Polasky, S., and Loreau, M. (2015b). The biodiversity-dependent ecosystem service debt. Ecol. Lett. 18, 119–134. doi: 10.1111/ele.12393

Jax, K. (2005). Function and “functioning” in ecology: what does it mean? Oikos 111, 641–648. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0706.2005.13851.x

Kelble, C. R., Loomis, D. K., Lovelace, S., Nuttle, W. K., Ortner, P. B., Fletcher, P., et al. (2013). The EBM-DPSER conceptual model: integrating ecosystem services into the DPSIR Framework. PLoS ONE 8:e70766. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0070766

Kenchington, E. L. (2003). Responsible Fisheries in the Marine Ecosystem . Wallingford: CBAI Publishing.

Klein, C. J., Brown, C. J., Halpern, B. S., Segan, D. B., McGowan, J., Beger, M., et al. (2015). Shortfalls in the global protected area network at representing marine biodiversity. Sci. Rep. 5:17539. doi: 10.1038/srep17539

Laurila-Pant, M., Lehikoinen, A., Uusitalo, L., and Venesjärvi, R. (2015). How to value biodiversity in environmental management? Ecol. Indic. 55, 1–11. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.02.034

Linné, C. (1735). Systema Naturae Per Regna Tria Naturae, Secundum Classes, Ordines, Genera, Species, Cum Characteribus, Differentiis, Synonymis, Locis . Leiden: Ex typographia Johannis Wilhelmi de Groot.

Long, R. D., Charles, A., and Stephenson, R. L. (2015). Key principles of marine ecosystem-based management. Mar. Policy 57, 53–60. doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2015.01.013

Loreau, M. (2000). Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning: recent theoretical advances. Oikos 91, 3–17. doi: 10.1034/j.1600-0706.2000.910101.x

Loreau, M., and Hector, A. (2001). Partitioning selection and complimentarity in biodiversity experiments. Nature 412, 72–76. doi: 10.1038/35083573

Maire, E., Grenouillet, G., Brosse, S., and Villeger, S. (2015). How many dimensions are needed to accurately assess functional diversity? A pragmatic approach for assessing the quality of functional spaces. Global Ecol. Biogeogr. 24, 728–740. doi: 10.1111/geb.12299

McCann, K. S. (2000). The diversity-stability debate. Nature 405, 228–233. doi: 10.1038/35012234

Mee, L. D., Jefferson, R. L., Laffoley, D. d., and Elliott, M. (2008). How good is good? human values and Europe's proposed Marine Strategy Directive. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 56, 187–204. doi: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2007.09.038

Naeem, S. (1998). Species redundancy and ecosystem reliability. Conserv. Biol. 12, 39–45. doi: 10.1046/j.1523-1739.1998.96379.x

Olenin, S., and Ducrotoy, J. P. (2006). The concept of biotope in marine ecology and coastal management. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 53, 20–29. doi: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2006.01.003

Olsgard, F., and Gray, J. S. (1995). A comprehensive analysis of the effects of offshore oil and gas exploration and production on the benthic communities of the Norwegian continental shelf. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 122, 277–306. doi: 10.3354/meps122277

Orth, R. J., Carruthers, T. J. B., Dennison, W. C., Duarte, C. M., Fourqurean, J. W., Heck, K. L. Jr., et al. (2006). A global crisis for seagrass ecosystems. Bioscience 56, 987–996. doi: 10.1641/0006-3568(2006)56[987:AGCFSE]2.0.CO;2

Palumbi, S. R. (2003). Population genetics, demographic connectivity, and the design of marine reserves. Ecol. Appl. 13, 146–158. doi: 10.1890/1051-0761(2003)013[0146:PGDCAT]2.0.CO;2

Paterson, D. M., Defew, E. C., and Jabour, J. (2012). “Ecosystem function and co-evolution of terminology in marine science and management,” in Marine Biodiversity and Ecosystem Functioning: Frameworks, methodologies, and integration , eds M. Solan, R. J. Aspden and D. M. Paterson (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 1–240.

Pauly, D., Christensen, V. V., Dalsgaard, J., Froese, R., and Torres, F. Jr. (1998). Fishing down marine food webs. Science 279, 860–863. doi: 10.1126/science.279.5352.860

Pearson, T. H., and Rosenberg, R. (1978). Macrobenthic succession in relation to organic enrichment and pollution of the marine environment. Oceanogr. Mar. Biol. Ann. Rev. 16, 229–331.

Pimm, S. L., Jenkins, C. N., Abell, R., Brooks, T. M., Gittleman, J. L., Joppa, L. N., et al. (2014). The biodiversity of species and their rates of extinction, distribution, and protection. Science 344, 6187. doi: 10.1126/science.1246752

Piroddi, C., Teixeira, H., Lynam, C. P., Smith, C., Alvarez, M. C., Mazik, K., et al. (2015). Using ecological models to assess ecosystem status in support of the european marine strategy framework directive. Ecol. Indic. 58, 175–191. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.05.037

Queiros, A. M. J. A., Strong, K., Mazik, J., Carstensen, J., Bruun, P. J., et al. (2016). An objective framework to test the quality of candidate indicators of good environmental status. Front. Mar. Sci. 3:73. doi: 10.3389/fmars.2016.00073

Reiss, H., Birchenough, S., Borja, A., Buhl-Mortensen, L., Craeymeersch, J., Dannheim, J., et al. (2015). Benthos distribution modelling and its relevance for marine ecosystem management. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 72, 297–315. doi: 10.1093/icesjms/fsu107

Rice, J., Arvanitidis, C., Borja, A., Frid, C., Hiddink, J. G., Krause, J., et al. (2012). Indicators for Sea-floor integrity under the european marine strategy framework directive. Ecol. Indic. 12, 174–184. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.03.021

Rogers, S. I., Casini, M., Cury, P., Heath, M., Irigoien, I., Kuosa, H., et al. (2010). Marine Strategy Framework Directive Task Group 5 Report: Food Webs . EUR 24343 EN - Joint Research Centre, Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 55.

Rombouts, I., Beaugrand, G., Fizzala, X., Gaill, F., Greenstreet, S. P. R., Lamare, S., et al. (2013). Food web indicators under the marine strategy framework directive: from complexity to simplicity? Ecol. Indic. 29, 246–254. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.12.021

Rosenberg, R., Nilsson, H. C., and Diaz, R. J. (2001). Response of benthic fauna and changing sediment redox profiles over a hypoxic gradient. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 53, 343–350. doi: 10.1006/ecss.2001.0810

Sarkar, S., and Margules, C. (2002). Operationalizing biodiversity for conservation planning. J. Biosci. 27, 299–308. doi: 10.1007/BF02704961

Scharin, H., Ericsdotter, S., Elliott, M., Turner, R. K., Niiranen, S., Blenckner, T., et al. (2016). Processes for the sustainable stewardship of marine environments. Ecol. Econ. 128, 55–67. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.04.010

Selig, E. R., Longo, C., Halpern, B. S., Best, B. D., Hardy, D., Elfes, C. T., et al. (2013). Assessing global marine biodiversity status within a coupled socio-ecological perspective. PLoS ONE 8:e60284. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0060284

Smith, C. J., Papadopoulou, K.-N., Barnard, S., Mazik, K., Elliott, M., Patrício, J., et al. (2016). Managing the marine environment, conceptual models and assessment: considerations for the european marine strategy framework directive. Front. Mar. Sci. 3:144. doi: 10.3389/fmars.2016.00144

Snelgrove, P. V., Thrush, S. F., Wall, D. H., and Norkko, A. (2014). Real world biodiversity-ecosystem functioning: a seafloor perspective. Trends Ecol. Evol. 29, 398–405. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2014.05.002

Solan, M., Raffaelli, D. G., Paterson, D. M., White, P. C. L., and Pierce, G. J. (2006). Marine biodiversity and ecosystem function: empirical approaches and future research needs - Introduction. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 311, 175–178. doi: 10.3354/meps311175

Steele, J. H. (1962). Environmental control of photosynthesis in the sea. Limnol. Oceanogr. 7, 137–150. doi: 10.4319/lo.1962.7.2.0137

Strong, J. A., Andonegi, E., Bizsel, K. C., Danovaro, R., Elliott, M., Franco, A., et al. (2015). Marine biodiversity and ecosystem function relationships: the potential for practical monitoring applications. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 161, 46–64. doi: 10.1016/j.ecss.2015.04.008

Teixeira, H. T., Berg, L., Uusitalo, K., Fürhaupter, A.-S., Heiskanen, K., et al. (2016). A catalogue of marine biodiversity indicators. Front. Mar. Sci. 3:207. doi: 10.3389/fmars.2016.00207

Tett, P., Gowen, R. J., Painting, S. J., Elliott, M., Forster, R., Mills, D. K., et al. (2013). Framework for understanding marine ecosystem health. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 494, 1–27. doi: 10.3354/meps10539

Turner, R. K., and Schaafsma, M. (2015). Coastal Zones Ecosystem Services: From Science to Values and Decision Making . Cham: Springer International Publication.

Uusitalo, L. H., Blanchet, J., Andersen, O., Beauchard, T., Berg, S., Bianchelli, A., et al. (2016). Indicator-based assessment of marine biological diversity – lessons from 10 case studies across the European Seas. Front. Mar. Sci. 3:159. doi: 10.3389/fmars.2016.00159

van den Belt, M., and Costanza, R. (2012). “Ecological economics of estuaries and coasts,” in Treatise on Estuarine and Coastal Science , eds E. Wolanski, D. McLusky, M. van den belt, and R. Costanza (Waltham, MA: Academic Press), 525.

Wang, S., and Loreau, M. (2016). Biodiversity and ecosystem stability across scales in metacommunities. Ecol. Lett. 19, 510–518. doi: 10.1111/ele.12582

Wilson, E. O. (1988). “The Current State of Biodiversity,” in Biodiversity , eds E. O. Wilson and F. M. Peter. (Washington, DC: National Academy Press), 3–20.

Wilson, E. O. (1985). The biological diversity crisis. BioScience 35, 700–706. doi: 10.2307/1310051

Yachi, S., and Loreau, M. (1999). Biodiversity and ecosystem productivity in a fluctuating environment: the insurance hypothesis. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 96, 1463–1468. doi: 10.1073/pnas.96.4.1463

Zacharius, M. A., and Roff, J. C. (2000). Hierarchical ecological approach to conserving Marine biodiversity. Conserv. Biol. 15, 1327–1334. doi: 10.1046/j.1523-1739.2000.99191.x

Keywords: conceptual models, marine biodiversity, ecosystems, food-webs, components, assessment

Citation: Cochrane SKJ, Andersen JH, Berg T, Blanchet H, Borja A, Carstensen J, Elliott M, Hummel H, Niquil N and Renaud PE (2016) What Is Marine Biodiversity? Towards Common Concepts and Their Implications for Assessing Biodiversity Status. Front. Mar. Sci . 3:248. doi: 10.3389/fmars.2016.00248

Received: 15 July 2016; Accepted: 14 November 2016; Published: 15 December 2016.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2016 Cochrane, Andersen, Berg, Blanchet, Borja, Carstensen, Elliott, Hummel, Niquil and Renaud. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Sabine K. J. Cochrane, [email protected] ; [email protected]

This article is part of the Research Topic

Bridging the Gap Between Policy and Science in Assessing the Health Status of Marine Ecosystems

• Biology Article
• Biodiversity

Biodiversity and its Types

Table of Contents

Types of Biodiversity

Importance of Biodiversity

Biodiversity in india, biodiversity definition.

“Biodiversity is the variation among living organisms from different sources including terrestrial, marine and desert ecosystems, and the ecological complexes of which they are a part.”

What is Biodiversity?

Biodiversity describes the richness and variety of life on earth. It is the most complex and important feature of our planet. Without biodiversity, life would not sustain.

The term biodiversity was coined in 1985. It is important in natural as well as artificial ecosystems. It deals with nature’s variety, the biosphere. It refers to variabilities among plants, animals and microorganism species.

Biodiversity includes the number of different organisms and their relative frequencies in an ecosystem. It also reflects the organization of organisms at different levels.

Biodiversity holds ecological and economic significance. It provides us with nourishment, housing, fuel, clothing and several other resources. It also extracts monetary benefits through tourism. Therefore, it is very important to have a good knowledge of biodiversity for a sustainable livelihood.

Also Read:  Flagship Species

There are the following three different types of biodiversity:

• Genetic Biodiversity
• Species Biodiversity
• Ecological Biodiversity

Species diversity  

Species diversity refers to the variety of different types of species found in a particular area. It is the biodiversity at the most basic level. It includes all the species ranging from plants to different microorganisms.

No two individuals of the same species are exactly similar. For example, humans show a lot of diversity among themselves. 

Genetic diversity

It refers to the variations among the genetic resources of the organisms. Every individual of a particular species differs from each other in their genetic constitution. That is why every human looks different from each other. Similarly, there are different varieties in the same species of rice, wheat, maize, barley, etc.

Ecological diversity  

An ecosystem is a collection of living and non-living organisms and their interaction with each other. Ecological biodiversity refers to the variations in the plant and animal species living together and connected by food chains and food webs.

It is the diversity observed among the different  ecosystems in a region. Diversity in different ecosystems like deserts, rainforests, mangroves, etc., include ecological diversity.

Also Read:  Biodiversity in Plants and Animals

Biodiversity and its maintenance are very important for sustaining life on earth. A few of the reasons explaining the importance of biodiversity are:

Ecological Stability

Every species has a specific role in an ecosystem. They capture and store energy and also produce and decompose organic matter. The ecosystem supports the services without which humans cannot survive. A diverse ecosystem is more productive and can withstand environmental stress.

Economic Importance

Biodiversity is a reservoir of resources for the manufacture of food, cosmetic products and pharmaceuticals.

Crops livestock, fishery, and forests are a rich sources of food.

Wild plants such as Cinchona and Foxglove plant are used for medicinal purposes.

Wood, fibres, perfumes, lubricants, rubber, resins, poison and cork are all derived from different plant species.

The national parks and sanctuaries are a source of tourism. They are a source of beauty and joy for many people.

Ethical Importance

All species have a right to exist. Humans should not cause their voluntary extinction. Biodiversity preserves different cultures and spiritual heritage. Therefore, it is very important to conserve biodiversity.

India is one of the most diverse nations in the world. It ranks ninth in terms of plant species richness. Two of the world’s 25 biodiversity hotspots are found in India. It is the origin of important crop species such as pigeon pea, eggplant, cucumber, cotton and sesame. India is also a centre of various domesticated species such as millets, cereals, legumes, vegetables, medicinal and aromatic crops, etc.

India is equally diverse in its faunal wealth. There are about 91000 animal species found here.

However, diversity is depleting at a drastic rate and various programmes on biodiversity conservation are being launched to conserve nature.

Also read: Ecology

Frequently Asked Questions

What is biodiversity, what are the different types of biodiversity.

The three types of biodiversity are:

• Species Diversity
• Genetic Diversity
• Ecological Diversity

What is ecological diversity?

What is the role of biodiversity in maintaining environmental balance, what is the importance of biodiversity.

• Maintaining the balance of the ecosystem: Recycling and storage of nutrients, combating pollution, stabilizing climate, protecting water resources, forming and protecting soil and maintaining eco-balance
• Provision of biological resources: Provision of medicines and pharmaceuticals, food for the human population and animals, ornamental plants, wood products, breeding stock and diversity of species, ecosystems and genes.
• Social benefits: Recreation and tourism, cultural value and education and research.

Explore more:

• How do mutations cause evolution?
• How are species and populations related?
• How many types of environment are there?
• Why was Charles Darwin’s theory important?
• Why should we conserve biodiversity short answer?
• What are the six different major levels of organization?

Put your understanding of this concept to test by answering a few MCQs. Click ‘Start Quiz’ to begin!

Select the correct answer and click on the “Finish” button Check your score and answers at the end of the quiz

Explore BYJU’S for more concepts on Biology

Your result is as below

Request OTP on Voice Call

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

Your Mobile number and Email id will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Post My Comment

It is a good app because we learn more things from this app

It is very nice explanations

It’s good explanations and experience to me

Best app among all apps

Importance about environmental studies

Best app among all study app

Small quiz make your concepts on tips .

Realistic way of Study , concepts clear Important.

• Share Share

Register with BYJU'S & Download Free PDFs

Register with byju's & watch live videos.

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals

Biodiversity articles from across Nature Portfolio

Biodiversity is the variation in living forms and can be measured in ways that include the number of species, functional variety of species, evenness of species distribution or genetic diversity. Biodiversity science investigates levels of biodiversity, its functional effects, and how and why it changes over time.

Extinction drives the climate-change-induced reshuffling of forest plant communities

Climate warming is triggering a steady increase in the mean thermal optimum of plant communities. We show that this increase reflects the dieback of cold-adapted species rather than the arrival of warmer-adapted species, with negative effects on local diversity and mutually cancelling effects on community heterogeneity.

Latest Research and Reviews

High temporal resolution data reveal low bat and insect activity over managed meadows in central Europe

• Melina T. Dietzer
• Lara Keicher
• Dina K. N. Dechmann

Deep biogeographic barriers explain divergent global vertebrate communities

The effect of biogeographic isolation on biodiversity remains unclear. Assessing global mammal and bird assemblages, the authors show that long-term biogeographic barriers explain reduced species richness and divergent ecological function, while environment determines diversity in most of the world.

• Peter J. Williams
• Elise F. Zipkin
• Jedediah F. Brodie

Natural warming differentiates communities and increases diversity in deep-sea Ridge Flank Hydrothermal Systems

A study of opportunity on deep-sea Ridge Flank Hydrothermal Systems, which host low-temperature, chemically insignificant venting, suggests that warmer temperatures are a contributing factor to changing community composition and higher biodiversity.

• Anne M. Hartwell
• Anna E. Wheat
• Jennifer A. Dijkstra

A dataset of thermal preferences for Mediterranean demersal and benthic macrofauna

• Salvatore Valente
• Francesco Colloca

Revealing uncertainty in the status of biodiversity change

This study presents an approach to deal with spatial, temporal and phylogenetic non-independence in large-scale analyses of biodiversity change, improving trend estimation and inference across scales.

• T. F. Johnson
• A. P. Beckerman
• R. P. Freckleton

Heat and desiccation tolerances predict bee abundance under climate change

A 16-year dataset of abundance patterns of a diverse assemblage of bees in New Mexico, USA predicts declines for many bee species and indicates that drought-tolerant taxa will prevail in a warming and drying climate.

• Melanie R. Kazenel
• Karen W. Wright
• Jennifer A. Rudgers

News and Comment

Deep-sea mining plans should not be rushed

Why are companies and governments determined to start commercial-scale mining for rare metals, when so little is known about its wider impacts?

How a tree-hugging protest transformed Indian environmentalism

Fifty years ago, a group of women from the villages of the Western Himalayas sparked Chipko, a green movement that remains relevant in the age of climate change.

• Seema Mundoli

The Global Biodiversity Framework’s ecosystem restoration target requires more clarity and careful legal interpretation

• Justine Bell-James
• Rose Foster
• James A. Fitzsimons

Train young scientists in taxonomy to help solve the biodiversity crisis

• Dasheng Liu
• Julian R. Thompson
• Henglun Shen

Why citizen scientists are gathering DNA from hundreds of lakes — on the same day

Massive environmental DNA project will take a record-setting snapshot of biodiversity worldwide.

• Lydia Larsen

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Filed under:

• Down to Earth

The case against the concept of biodiversity

It’s more controversial than you might think.

Share this story

• Share this on Facebook
• Share this on Twitter
• Share this on Reddit
• Share All sharing options

Share All sharing options for: The case against the concept of biodiversity

In 2017, an evolutionary biologist named R. Alexander Pyron ignited controversy with a Washington Post commentary titled “We don’t need to save endangered species. Extinction is part of evolution.” He wrote: “Conserving a species we have helped to kill off, but on which we are not directly dependent, serves to discharge our own guilt, but little else.”

Pyron’s take challenged the decades-old idea that biodiversity is a good thing — that humans should strive to preserve all forms of life on Earth and their interconnectedness across ecosystems. It prompted scientist and writer Carl Safina to mount a passionate defense of biodiversity, calling Pyron’s stance “conceptually confused” and containing “jarring assertions.” Safina’s most cutting rebuke was that belittling biodiversity derails environmental conversations. “It’s like answering ‘Black lives matter’ with ‘All lives matter,’” he wrote. “It’s a way of intentionally missing the point.”

Nobel Prize winners co-signed more rebuttals. Professors blogged long meditations on why endangered species need to be saved. There were scientists who had previously questioned a hyperfocus on saving species, to be sure , though none had done so in such a public and broad-sweeping manner as Pyron. Josh Schimel, an ecologist at UC Santa Barbara, wrote : “Remember, you are a scientist — it is not your job to be right. It is your job to be thoughtful, careful, and analytical.” Pyron declined a request for comment for this story.

Ginger Allington, a landscape ecologist and professor at George Washington University who tracks the scientific debate around “biodiversity,” says this scientific back-and-forth reflects increasing conflict about the importance of biodiversity and species loss.

The most common way to measure biodiversity is to count the number of species in a certain place, also known as “species richness.” But critics question the usefulness of this number and argue that the concept has always been fuzzy, even to scientists, akin to a “ new linguistic bottle for the wine of old ideas .”

A handful of scientists want to do away with the term biodiversity altogether — and have been trying to do so since the late 1990s. The concept, they say, is hard to quantify, hard to track globally over time, and actually isn’t an indication of what people commonly picture as a “healthy” ecosystem. (Scientists are generally reluctant to describe ecosystems in terms of “healthy” or “unhealthy,” which are value judgments.)

Last year, the United Nations reported that the world has failed to reach even one of the major biodiversity conservation targets it had set for itself in 2010. In the face of accelerating species and habitat loss, countries are now committing to protecting 30 percent of land and water by 2030. This fall, 193 nations are set to attend the virtual Convention on Biological Diversity to hash out a plan to stop biodiversity loss. (A draft of that plan was published last month.) In the US, the Biden administration has proposed its own game-changing approach to nature conservation . Meanwhile, a coronavirus pandemic that may have begun in animals reminds us that we are fundamentally linked to the animals in these critical habitats.

Against this backdrop, a new generation of scientists is taking up the debate about what to do about “biodiversity” itself — the scientific concept, its popular understanding, and indeed the very word. As Allington told Vox: “There’s just a lot of drama.”

The backstory of biodiversity

Before there was biodiversity, there was BioDiversity. A key moment in the evolution of the word came at the National Forum on BioDiversity, held at the Smithsonian Institution and National Academy of Sciences, in 1986. Speakers included Jared Diamond, who later authored Guns, Germs, and Steel, and the biologist E.O. Wilson, who most recently popularized the idea of protecting half the planet .

Diamond and Wilson — along with seven other white male scientists in attendance — dubbed themselves the “Club of Earth” and held a press conference, telling reporters that biodiversity loss was the second-biggest “threat to civilization.” The first? Thermonuclear war.

Few women scientists or non-Western experts were featured. And not everyone felt comfortable crowning biodiversity as a scientific silver bullet, for that matter. One news report from the time quoted biologist Dan Janzen, who said at the forum that “one shouldn’t use the number of species as the only criterion for earmarking an area for conservation.” Janzen would later call the forum “an explicit political event” and said that the word biodiversity got “punched into that system at that point [in time] deliberately.”

Still, the forum drew 14,000 in-person attendees. Another 10,000 watched a live “teleconference” of key panelists beamed around the world. “BioDiversity: The Videotape,” a campy VHS recording of the teleconference spliced with wildlife footage, sold out. The New York Times, Washington Post, Boston Globe, and Time all covered the event, marking “the first time that biological diversity … had received such a broad public airing,” a December 1986 article in the journal BioScience noted. The forum not only streamlined the term — thanks to a suggestion by biologist Walter Rosen — but brought the buzzword to the forefront, as the growing rate of global species extinctions was given both a name and an urgency. “The biodiversity crisis,” Wilson said at the forum, “is a real crisis.”

Against the odds, the idea of biodiversity spread outside of science and around the world. “I’d compare the market penetration of ‘biodiversity’ to Madonna,” said Stuart Pimm, a conservation biologist at Duke University.

Pimm witnessed the word’s use rise suddenly in the 1980s as a young associate professor. Before then, Pimm had no simple name for the kind of research he was doing — now called conservation biology — and, more problematically, no term for what he was measuring out in the field. And so biodiversity “hit several things simultaneously,” he said. “It’s easy to popularize, it captures people’s imagination, and it’s scientifically credible.”

Three ecologists shaped “biodiversity” into the kind of science that goes mainstream, according to Pimm. Thomas Lovejoy coined the term “biological diversity” in the 1980s. Elliott Norse defined it as the variety of genes, species, and ecosystems in a given area. And Wilson, who initially deemed the contraction biodiversity “too glitzy,” ultimately popularized the word. In 1992, the UN codified the word biodiversity — and Norse’s definition — into the Convention on Biological Diversity, a multilateral treaty.

Biodiversity was thus conceived to capture two notions: a world teeming with wildlife, and the political problem of stopping extinctions. The idea had become “a force” capable of influencing global society, as climate and environmental law expert David Takacs wrote in his 1996 book The Idea of Biodiversity . “It is difficult to distinguish biodiversity, a socially constructed idea, from biodiversity, some concrete phenomena,” Takacs wrote.

But over the years, biodiversity has come to mean many things to different people — from “local species” to “wildness” to “natural balance” to just “a fancy word for nature,” according to a study of public opinion in Scotland . Researcher R.A. Lautenschlager, in a 1997 scientific article titled “ Biodiversity is dead ,” put it more bluntly: “Biodiversity has become so all-inclusive that it has become meaningless.”

“We need to be careful about what we are saying”

A practical question flows from this history: Does saving every species still matter?

Allington has seen colleagues try to address this kind of question publicly, and their answers, she says, tend to get misinterpreted. “We need to be careful about what we are saying,” she said.

To unpack this question in her college courses, Allington — who considers biodiversity to be “multifaceted” — passes out bags of mixed candy to her students, illustrating a key point: “The bags show that not all species play the same role in the ecosystem,” she said. Some species, like oysters, make key contributions to the ecosystem, and their disappearance would threaten all the rest. “The problem is that we still don’t know what functions the majority of species actually provide,” she said.

Scientists in today’s save-all-species debate disagree about where the science ends, and where the subjective idea of right and wrong begins. In this sense, debates about biodiversity may ultimately be debates about ethics, implicit human values , and whose ecological knowledge matters .

“Does every species matter?” asked Mark Vellend, a plant ecologist at University of Sherbrooke in Canada. “You cannot even give an answer unless you say, matter for what ?”

How to measure “goodness”

The late biologist Michael Soulé, the “ father of conservation biology ,” was unequivocal that biodiversity is good — though its goodness, he wrote, “ cannot be tested or proven .”

But in specific places, biodiversity for biodiversity’s sake is not necessarily good . On islands, for example, plant diversity is generally increasing because non-native species are arriving; some rare island plant species may go extinct as a result, but not always . Biodiversity might also be the wrong lens in ecosystems that weren’t diverse to begin with, like boreal forests close to the Arctic, which have low numbers of species that rarely face extinction even in the face of logging.

Many scientists recognize biodiversity as an imperfect yardstick. The total number of species, and how it changes, doesn’t capture all the ways that humans and other forces alter landscapes. “‘More biodiversity’ is not a universal prescription for conservation,” journalist Michelle Nijhuis writes in Beloved Beasts , a history of the conservation movement.

It also doesn’t capture the human experience of nature. A 2013 study — “ Is biodiversity attractive? ” — found that when it comes to outdoor recreation, visitors don’t actually prefer species-rich urban spaces. “Especially during the pandemic people [are] flocking to natural, wild spaces,” said Vellend. “Whether in those spaces there are 1,000 species or 100, to me that’s a pretty small part of the overall story.”

For many people, the on-ramp to nature is not through science. “Their point of entry is aesthetic,” Barry Lopez, the nature writer and Arctic Dreams author, said in a 2001 interview. “It’s not that they don’t know what biodiversity is, but it doesn’t have the pull,” he added. “The door for them lies elsewhere.”

A more measurable dimension of a place’s “goodness” within the human story, some scientists think, is ecosystem function. Forget the number of species, in other words, and focus on what each does for keeping an ecosystem enjoyable and humming, like the life-supporting role of oak trees — which support hundreds of species of caterpillars, a mainstay in most songbird diets — in North American hardwood forests. Using this framework, land managers would focus their conservation efforts on species that appear to play the most crucial role in a given ecosystem. (An 80-page US National Park Service report , called “Resist-Accept-Direct,” recently called for this triage approach.)

Pimm, for his part, thinks this framework is “total bullshit” — and he is not alone in that sentiment. It’s hard to develop a conservation plan around the emerging concept of ecosystem function, according to Pimm, precisely because we still know so little about the role of any given species in a place. “What does one even mean by ecosystem function?” he asked. “It doesn’t have any operational meaning.”

The concept of biodiversity is becoming even more influential in the realm of climate policy: In June, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change published its first-ever joint report with the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. Yet one of its authors, the Paris-Saclay University ecologist Paul Leadley, said while introducing the report that current on-the-ground approaches to saving species are essentially outdated. “We have to really rethink biodiversity conservation,” he said.

There is a broader movement to expand the meaning of “biodiversity”

So if the idea that saving every species saves the planet is imperfect, should we now abandon biodiversity?

“A concept can’t truly die until it’s got a replacement,” said Vellend. He says that the 1980s version of biodiversity should be seen as a starting point, with plenty of room for improvement. “Until somebody comes up with something better, we’re stuck with it.”

Even R. Alexander Pyron, the author of the explosive Post piece, cautioned against dropping “biodiversity” in a mea culpa he posted on his Facebook page after blowback from his peers. “I succumbed to a temptation to sensationalize parts of my argument,” Pyron wrote.

But others see an opportunity to expand the notion of biodiversity into something more inclusive and more just. Campaigns like #BiodiversityRevisited have created virtual dialogues and in-person workshops where an array of voices discuss ways of breathing new life into “biodiversity.” These discussions have pushed out possible replacement terms, like “ fabric of life ,” that might better capture the full range of life on Earth, from thriving trees to prospering pandas to healthy people.

One starting point might be to broaden the biodiversity concept to include humans, breaking down the barrier between our species and other animals. “My well-educated scientist colleagues will often slip and say ‘mammals and humans.’ Every time, I get a chill down my spine,” said Hopi Hoekstra, an evolutionary biologist and curator at Harvard University’s Museum of Comparative Zoology. Humans are mammals, after all. That even experts make these slips of the tongue “just highlights that there is still something to overcome there,” Hoekstra said.

Conservationists could also gain from a broadened notion of biodiversity that centers Indigenous and traditional knowledge , which has long been diminished by establishment science. Research shows that lands managed by Indigenous people are home to much of the world’s biodiversity, and that biodiversity tends to decline more slowly on those lands.

“Many of these Westernized concepts, we don’t see ourselves in them,” Andrea Reid, a fisheries scientist at University of British Columbia and a citizen of the Nisga’a nation, said. Indigenous concepts of conservation “include people within the system,” said Reid, who monitors diversity in British Columbia’s coldwater streams by counting species in ways that have cultural meaning to Indigenous people.

Reid has been working with Indigenous “knowledge keepers” who will go to a stream and look for certain species of dragonfly — for them, a “cultural indicator” that marks a healthy ecosystem. Other scientists might go to the same place and tally all insect species to measure local species richness. These measures can be used together, Reid says, to assess the overall condition of the stream over time.

This kind of “pluralistic” perspective , as some scientists call it, aligns with what Reid calls “two-eyed seeing” — a way of bringing together Indigenous and Western understandings. “It’s not about throwing something out, or just walking away from ‘biodiversity’ and its metrics,” Reid said. “It’s about enriching our understanding by bringing multiple perspectives to bear.”

Will you help keep Vox free for all?

At Vox, we believe that clarity is power, and that power shouldn’t only be available to those who can afford to pay. That’s why we keep our work free. Millions rely on Vox’s clear, high-quality journalism to understand the forces shaping today’s world. Support our mission and help keep Vox free for all by making a financial contribution to Vox today.

We accept credit card, Apple Pay, and Google Pay. You can also contribute via

Why fossil fuel producers are oddly optimistic in the climate change era

Ai already uses as much energy as a small country. it’s only the beginning., yes, even most temperate landscapes in the us can and will burn, sign up for the newsletter today, explained, thanks for signing up.

Check your inbox for a welcome email.

Oops. Something went wrong. Please enter a valid email and try again.

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

NASA Is Recruiting a New Class of Astronauts

Victor Glover, a nine-year veteran of the astronaut corps who will fly around the moon in 2025, said the search for excellence and diversity were not mutually exclusive.

By Kenneth Chang and Emma Goldberg

The reporters interviewed a NASA official and an astronaut in The Times’s newsroom for this article.

Do you dream of leaving the planet?

NASA is looking for its next group of astronauts, and you have until April 2 to make a pitch for yourself .

“Typically, it’s a very popular application,” April Jordan, NASA’s astronaut selection manager, said.

The odds that you will be chosen are slim. The last time NASA put out a call for applications, in 2020, more than 12,000 people applied.

It took the agency a year and a half to go through the applications. NASA selected just 10 of the hopefuls, or 0.083 percent. That makes Harvard’s 3.5 percent acceptance rate among high school applicants appear bountiful.

“So when I say ‘popular,’” Ms. Jordan said, “it’s probably an understatement.”

Ms. Jordan is on a media tour to spread the word that “ the right stuff ” for being an astronaut in 2024 is not the same as what it was in the 1960s, when astronauts were all white men, almost all from the military.

Joining her on that tour, which included a stop at The New York Times, was Victor Glover, a nine-year veteran of the astronaut corps who offered a glimpse into how he made it through the rigorous selection process.

To become a NASA astronaut today, you have to be a U.S. citizen and you must pass the astronaut physical exam.

NASA does set a fairly high bar for education — a master’s degree in science, technology, engineering or mathematics, followed by at least three years of related professional experience.

Beyond that, the agency tries to keep an open mind. (There is no age limit, for example, or a requirement for 20/20 vision.)

“We want the group of astronaut candidates that we select to be reflective of the nation that they’re representing,” Ms. Jordan said.

Take, for example, Mr. Glover.

In some aspects, he fits the historical archetype. Before NASA, he was a Navy aviator and trained as a test pilot.

He is also breaking historical barriers.

In 2020, he became the first Black astronaut to serve as a crew member on the International Space Station after 20 years of astronauts living there. In 2025, he will become the first Black astronaut to fly around the moon for the Artemis II mission .

To stand out in NASA’s competitive application process, Mr. Glover knew he would need more than a strong résumé. He was particularly set on landing a good joke.

The night before one of Mr. Glover’s interviews at NASA for the 2013 class, he was asked to write an essay. The title: “Girls Like Astronauts.”

“They’re sitting in this room all day listening to all these dry answers,” he recalled thinking. “I’m going to try to make them laugh.”

The essay pivoted from a punchline to poignancy, reflecting on the ways he has tried to inspire his four daughters. He also decided to be vulnerable during the interview, sharing a “bone-headed” moment when he risked nearly hitting the water during an air show demonstration.

“You have to be able to share that information with the interview panel when you come in, because you’re inevitably going to fail at something,” Ms. Jordan said. “And so there’s a humbleness that you have to bring in even if you’ve achieved great things.”

As part of the application process, Mr. Glover wrote a limerick that concluded: “This is all dizzying to me, because I gave so much blood and pee.”

Mr. Glover set his sights on going to outer space as a child, when he saw his classmates moved to tears by the Challenger disaster.

His space ambition deepened years later when he heard a speech from Pam Melroy, a former space shuttle commander. Ms. Melroy, now NASA’s deputy administrator, recounted how her crew had scrambled to fix a damaged solar array on the International Space Station.

“I thought, ‘Wow, she just talked about something really technical, really logistically challenging,’” Mr. Glover said. “But the emotion in it was about the people.”

He realized, then, that just as astronauts need technical ability, they also need something that is more difficult to teach: social skills.

“You’re going to live in this tin can with somebody for six months,” he said of a stay on the space station. “We’re almost picking family members.”

Mr. Glover proudly points to the diversity of backgrounds among current astronauts. “If you compare our office to the country’s demographics, we match the country very well,” he said.

Indeed, the diversity within NASA outpaces that of the private sector in some aspects. The percentage of Black astronauts is higher than the percentage of Black people in the broader science and technology work force, Mr. Glover said.

That is the direct result of NASA’s sustained efforts over a couple of decades to recruit astronauts beyond the traditional archetype, he said.

“Our office looks the way it looks because of this intentionality, and thinking about our biases and how it may affect who we hire,” he said. “I think that’s a huge victory.”

But Mr. Glover acknowledged that diversity as a hiring goal was becoming increasingly fraught .

Critics include Elon Musk, the billionaire who runs SpaceX, the rocket company that NASA relies on to transport cargo and astronauts — like Mr. Glover — to the International Space Station. NASA has also hired SpaceX to land astronauts on the moon .

“His perspective on some things is a little disturbing,” Mr. Glover said of Mr. Musk.

SpaceX did not respond to a request for comment by Mr. Musk.

Mr. Musk has repeatedly called for the end of programs that focus on diversity, equity and inclusion, or D.E.I. “D.E.I. is just another word for racism,” he posted in January on X, the social media network that he owns.

Mr. Glover said he had just listened to a contentious interview that Don Lemon , a former CNN anchor, recently conducted with Mr. Musk. “My mom sent it to me and she goes, ‘Does he remember you rode in his spaceship?’” he said. “I’m like, ‘Ma, he probably remembers very vividly.’ He’s a great intellect, but he probably just doesn’t care.”

People ask him how he feels about becoming the first Black person to go on a lunar mission next year when Artemis II will swing around the moon without landing.

“Actually, I’m sad,” Mr. Glover said. “It’s 2025, and I’m going to be the first? Come on.”

He recounted the story of Ed Dwight , the only Black Air Force pilot in the 1960s who met the restrictive requirements that NASA had for astronauts then. But Mr. Dwight was never selected.

“Ed Dwight could have done this in the ’60s,” Mr. Glover said. “How much better would our country be if he actually got the chance? Society wasn’t ready. It’s not him. He was ready.”

While Mr. Glover has heard some of the pushback to D.E.I. initiatives, he feels firmly that seeking diversity is not about lowering standards and accepting less qualified candidates. “I think it should just be excellence,” he said. “As long as you don’t equate whiteness or maleness with excellence, then we’re good. We’re speaking the same language.”

Many applicants are drawn by the potential glory of being the first astronauts to walk on Mars, an accomplishment that NASA is aiming for in the 2030s.

But Mr. Glover said they should also contemplate the sacrifices that they and their families might have to make along the way.

“The trip to Mars is six to nine months,” he said. “You’re going to be away from familiar for more than a year, one to three years. Are you really ready for that?”

Kenneth Chang , a science reporter at The Times, covers NASA and the solar system, and research closer to Earth. More about Kenneth Chang

Emma Goldberg is a business reporter covering workplace culture and the ways work is evolving in a time of social and technological change. More about Emma Goldberg

What’s Up in Space and Astronomy

Keep track of things going on in our solar system and all around the universe..

Never miss an eclipse, a meteor shower, a rocket launch or any other 2024 event  that’s out of this world with  our space and astronomy calendar .

A new set of computer simulations, which take into account the effects of stars moving past our solar system, has effectively made it harder to predict Earth’s future and reconstruct its past.

Dante Lauretta, the planetary scientist who led the OSIRIS-REx mission to retrieve a handful of space dust , discusses his next final frontier.

A nova named T Coronae Borealis lit up the night about 80 years ago. Astronomers say it’s expected to put on another show  in the coming months.

Voyager 1, the 46-year-old first craft in interstellar space which flew by Jupiter and Saturn in its youth, may have gone dark .

Is Pluto a planet? And what is a planet, anyway? Test your knowledge here .