Anthropogenic ecosystem disturbance and the recovery debt

David Moreno-Mateos (), Edward Barbier, Peter C. Jones, Holly P. Jones, James Aronson, José A. López-López, Michelle L. McCrackin, Paula Meli, Daniel Montoya and José M. Rey Benayas
Additional contact information
David Moreno-Mateos: Basque Center for Climate Change–BC3
Peter C. Jones: Northern Illinois University
Holly P. Jones: Northern Illinois University
James Aronson: Missouri Botanical Garden
José A. López-López: School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol
Michelle L. McCrackin: Baltic Sea Centre, Stockholm University
Paula Meli: Fundación Internacional para la Restauración de Ecosistemas
Daniel Montoya: Centre for Biodiversity Theory and Modeling, Station D’Ecologie Experimentale du CNRS
José M. Rey Benayas: Fundación Internacional para la Restauración de Ecosistemas

Nature Communications, 2017, vol. 8, issue 1, 1-6

Abstract: Abstract Ecosystem recovery from anthropogenic disturbances, either without human intervention or assisted by ecological restoration, is increasingly occurring worldwide. As ecosystems progress through recovery, it is important to estimate any resulting deficit in biodiversity and functions. Here we use data from 3,035 sampling plots worldwide, to quantify the interim reduction of biodiversity and functions occurring during the recovery process (that is, the ‘recovery debt’). Compared with reference levels, recovering ecosystems run annual deficits of 46–51% for organism abundance, 27–33% for species diversity, 32–42% for carbon cycling and 31–41% for nitrogen cycling. Our results are consistent across biomes but not across degrading factors. Our results suggest that recovering and restored ecosystems have less abundance, diversity and cycling of carbon and nitrogen than ‘undisturbed’ ecosystems, and that even if complete recovery is reached, an interim recovery debt will accumulate. Under such circumstances, increasing the quantity of less-functional ecosystems through ecological restoration and offsetting are inadequate alternatives to ecosystem protection.

Date: 2017
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (9)

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms14163 Abstract (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:nat:natcom:v:8:y:2017:i:1:d:10.1038_ncomms14163

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
https://www.nature.com/ncomms/

DOI: 10.1038/ncomms14163

Access Statistics for this article

Nature Communications is currently edited by Nathalie Le Bot, Enda Bergin and Fiona Gillespie

More articles in Nature Communications from Nature
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().