Seitz, Daniel

FRINQ

Planetary Boundaries Rough Draft

Planetary boundaries have become a major issue in the scientific community. A paper by Johan
Rockstrom declared that there were several planetary boundaries that we must not cross if we were to
ensure the continuation of Holocene era, the period of time that humans have thrived. One of these
boundaries is biodiversity loss. I am trying to determine how important biodiversity loss is compared to
the other planetary boundaries. All of the planetary boundaries are very interconnected, each one
affecting some part of the others. It is very important to try to figure out how each planetary boundary
affects the others so that we can put our focus on the planetary boundaries that have the greatest effect
on all the others. If we can use our resources in the most efficient way possible, it will make the job of
remaining within a safe operating space much easier. Biodiversity loss is especially interconnected with
the other planetary boundaries, arguably more so than any other planetary boundary. Because the
interconnectivity of planetary boundaries is so complicated, the problem of slowing biodiversity loss is
also complicated, there is no single solution that can be pointed at.
Biodiversity loss caries with it many consequences, but it is also a natural part of ecosystems.
The problem is that biodiversity loss has been increasing rapidly in recent times. In Rockstrom's paper
about a safe operating space for humanity, he explains what kinds of effects it has on the environment.
Major loss of biodiversity can increase the vulnerability of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems to
changes in climate and ocean acidity. Ecosystems that depend on a single or very few species are
especially vulnerable to tipping into undesired states due to biodiversity loss. Rockstrom shows how
much the rate of biodiversity loss has increases, the background extinction rate for marine life is 0.1
1 extinctions per million species per year; for mammals it is 0.2 0.5 extinctions per million species

per year. Today, the rate of extinction of species is estimated to be 100 to 1,000 times more than what
could be considered natural (Rockstrom). Humans have had a massive impact on the environment, and
in turn the rate of biodiversity loss in most ecosystems. Land use by humans exerts the most significant
effect on biodiversity loss. Much of the land previously unused by humans is being converted for
agricultural or urban use. Introduction of foreign species also can dramatically effect the rate of species
loss. Changes in frequency, duration, or magnitude of natural events like wildfires also contributes to
this increase in biodiversity loss. Climate change is also an important driver of biodiversity loss.
Rockstrom wrote in his paper that up to 30% of all mammal, bird, and amphibian species will be
threatened with extinction this century (Rockstrom). This is an alarming percentage of species, it
shows that something needs to be done to change the trend that is occurring.
There are some who would say that biodiversity loss is not an important issue to focus on, that
there are much more pressing matters that we should be focusing on like climate change. I agree with
them to an extent, but I do believe that biodiversity loss is something that we should actively be trying
to find a solution to. Biodiversity loss is affected by both humans and other planetary boundaries. There
are many things governments can do in order to help reduce biodiversity loss. Restrictions on land use
or reallocation of land to nature preserves can help reestablish stable ecosystems. Restriction on
recreational hunting and efforts to reduce importation of invasive species can also help to reduce the
rate of biodiversity loss. These are all things that governments can do as a part of a solution.
Biodiversity loss can also be slowed by improvements in other planetary boundaries. If climate change
is reversed, it can help return ecosystems back to their natural states, and in turn reduce the rate of
biodiversity loss.
According to a paper published by David Hooper, biodiversity loss alters key processes
important to the productivity and sustainability of Earth's ecosystems. According to the paper,
intermediate levels of species loss (2140%) reduced plant production by 510%, comparable to
previously documented effects of ultraviolet radiation and climate warming. Higher levels of extinction

(4160%) had effects rivaling those of ozone, acidification, elevated CO2 and nutrient pollution
(Hooper). The identity of the species lost also has an effect on productivity of an ecosystem. If a key
species is lost, it can have a vast impact on the productivity of the ecosystem. Biodiversity loss could
be one of the major drivers of ecosystem change in the Twenty-First Century.
This study helps to show the impact that biodiversity loss has on environmental systems. It
provides more evidence that biodiversity loss is an important planetary boundary to be focused on.
Biodiversity loss can lower the production of an ecosystem, which effects various other planetary
boundaries. If we can reduce biodiversity loss, it will also help increase productivity of many
ecosystems. This increase in productivity can help push other planetary boundaries below their limits.
It also brings up the interesting question of whether increasing productivity in an ecosystem would also
reduce biodiversity loss in that ecosystem. If this is the case, then increasing productivity by fixing
climate change or acidification could also lower biodiversity loss. If the aid flows both ways, then it is
important to figure out which one effects the others more. If there is an accurate and adequate way to
measure something like that, then it would be a much more viable option to focus more efforts on the
planetary boundary that helps the others the most.
One paper by Erle Ellis states that plant biodiversity is in fact not a problem, and that it is
actually, on a regional level, increasing. He comes to this conclusion based upon the fact that human
populations are bringing in new species of plants. He states that native species losses are significant
across about half of Earth's ice free land, but that mainly because of species invasions exceeding native
species losses. This means that regionally, there is actually an increase in richness of plant biodiversity.
This creates patterns of global plant species richness that are relatively similar to native patterns. This
effect has shown a trend toward biodiversity thinning globally, and enriching locally. As native
species are going extinct, at a regional level this is being balanced by invasions of exotic plants, usually
brought in by humans. This means that overall, there are less unique plant species, but regionally new
species are being introduced.

This paper should not, in my opinion, be taken as a call to think of biodiversity loss as less of an
issue. The data must be analyzed to see what it actually represents, just taking it at face value doesn't
tell the full story. While it is true that locally biodiversity may technically increasing, globally it is
decreasing. Species are being shifted around and spread out, while local species are being killed off by
these new invasive species. In my opinion it is much more important to have more global diversity than
just regional diversity. Biodiversity loss is certainly still an issue that can't be written off just because
data shows a relatively similar diversity of plant species. What is more important to think about is that
the native species are becoming extinct while foreign, exotic species are coming in. This influx of
foreign species is what is keeping the local biodiversity at relatively natural levels.
According to a study by the IVM Institute for Environmental Studies, there are a few possible
options for reducing the rate of biodiversity loss. We can expand protected areas to prevent too much
land from being used for agricultural and urban development. There are currently 65 terrestrial
ecoregions created to protect organisms belonging to certain habitats. There are moderate regulation
costs involved in expanding these ecoregions, but overall, the feasibility of this option is quite high, as
long as governments can agree to the expansion of the regions. Another option is to reduce
deforestation. Obviously, reducing deforestation would help with biodiversity loss by keeping the
ecosystem unaffected by humans. This option runs into regulation costs as well, as well as being
unpopular with many other groups. Reducing marine fishing efforts is another option presented by the
study. It would require more certification for fisheries, there is a much lower cost for states with this
option, the majority of the cost would be put on the fisheries. The largest barrier comes from an
asymmetry in interests between small, less developed countries with small-scale fisheries, and larger,
more developed countries with large-scale fisheries. One more option discussed by the study is a
change in diets. A no-meat or low-meat diet would help to reduce the rate of biodiversity loss. This
option has a very low cost, but it is met with much opposition from cultural backlash, as well as a lack
of concrete scientific evidence supporting the claim that it would help reduce biodiversity loss. The

final option discussed by the study is the mitigation of climate change. Climate change is one of the
largest factors in biodiversity loss outside of direct human interference. A greenhouse gas concentration
level of 450 ppm would be the goal of this option. It requires the interest of participating governments
to enforce this concentration of greenhouse gasses. Even if they aren't outright solutions, these options
can provide a good foundation for future efforts.
Biodiversity is one of the most important planetary boundaries. It effects many of the other
planetary boundaries, and even just the viability of ecosystems. With too much biodiversity loss
ecosystems cannot survive and thrive. It is important to try and limit biodiversity loss in whatever way
we can. Restrictions on human land use, especially land used for urban growth, need to be placed in
order to prevent increasing rates of biodiversity loss. Land use is one of the largest factors that effects
biodiversity loss, and it is something that governments can control fairly effectively. Biodiversity loss
is also effected by climate change, changes in climate away from the norm usually increase the rate of
biodiversity loss. Interestingly biodiversity loss is linked closely with the productivity of an ecosystem.
The productivity and stability of ecosystems play integral parts in keeping planetary boundaries within
their limits. Data on biodiversity must be analyzed in order to determine what kind of impact it could
have on the overall picture. One paper showed that regional biodiversity of plants has not varied far
from natural levels, but this is because foreign species are invading the local ecosystems and offsetting
the natural species that are becoming extinct. This creates more local diversity, as new species are
being introduced to ecosystems, but an overall reduction in global diversity as species are only being
shuffled around the world while some go extinct. By reducing the rate of biodiversity loss we can also
aid in reducing the problem of other planetary boundaries.