Here we argue that our understanding of biodiversity trends in the Anthropocene, and our ability to protect the natural world, is impeded by a failure to consider different types of biodiversity measured at different spatial scales.
In a meta-analysis of 446 biodiversity measures taken between 1954 and 2004, of which 312 manipulated plant species biodiversity, species-level biodiversity was shown to positively affect several ecosystem properties including stability, regulation of biodiversity, nutrient cycling, erosion control, and productivity at the primary, secondary, and tertiary levels (Balvanera et al., 2006).
Figure 3: Effects of protection on four biodiversity measures across eight land use types.
A rather detailed description of forest structure and biodiversity measures represents the main improvements compared to previous analyses.
First, using the all-sites data, we modelled the response of each biodiversity measure to protection status, land use, and their interaction.
Some ecoregions were consistently prioritized regardless of the biodiversity measure, e.g., the Lowland fynbos and renosterveld, while others are selected based only on a single measure such as the Southeastern Iberian shrublands and woodlands in the Mediterranean Basin or the Naracoorte woodlands in Australia.
The average percent of the budget received across all biodiversity measures revealed that certain ecoregions received a comparatively large amount of the budget.
As sustainable development is a human-centred concept the article contributes primarily to the discussion on social part of the nature social relationship, namely on quality of life of local population and problems of social acceptance of biodiversity conservation measures.
However, biodiversity measures improve with the use of native plants.
