PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 15296781

Ecology: compensating for extinction.

Peter Kareiva
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Food web interactions allow communities to compensate for the loss of species. Compensation of this kind may reshuffle communities so that today's resilient species are tomorrow's vulnerable species, creating a false impression of ecosystem stability following the first wave of extinction.

Explore related subjects

BiodiversityBiomassConservation of Natural ResourcesFood ChainModels, BiologicalPopulation DynamicsSpecies SpecificityJournal ArticleReview

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Peter Kareiva. 2004-08-10. Ecology: compensating for extinction.. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2004.07.048

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2026

Protecting tropical forests is more cost-effective for biodiversity and climate than restoration.

Halting deforestation and promoting restoration are at the core of strategies to confront the biodiversity and climate crises in tropical forests. Avoiding forest disturbances is also critically important but has received far less attention, and there is a lack of clarity about the relative cost-effectiveness of these three interventions. We compare the biodiversity and carbon benefits and costs associated with each intervention, comparing observed and counterfactual outcomes based on in-depth field assessments and high-resolution remote sensing in the Brazilian Amazon deforestation frontier. Avoidance interventions delivered the greatest benefits and were more cost-effective than restoration, with results being robust to a range of benefit and cost assumptions. However, combined interventions delivered the greatest gains and were essential to reverse biodiversity and carbon losses.

Biodiversity↗
PubMed2026

Operationalizing Local Ecological Knowledge for Aquatic Biodiversity Conservation: A Systematic Review and Management Framework.

Effective conservation and management of aquatic biodiversity is severely constrained by the absence of long-term ecological data in small-scale, tropical, and data-poor fisheries, where roughly one-quarter to one-third of freshwater fish species and 37.5% of elasmobranchs are threatened with extinction once Data Deficient species are accounted for. Conventional monitoring and stock-assessment tools are often financially and technically inaccessible in these systems, leaving managers without the evidence needed to prioritize conservation action or implement precautionary governance. Local Ecological Knowledge (LEK) is a largely underutilized resource for natural resource management that can provide temporal depth, spatial resolution, and species-specific ecological insights unavailable from scientific records. We conducted a systematic review and bibliometric synthesis of 60 peer-reviewed studies (1997-2025) applying LEK to assess fish conservation status, examining how, where, and through what methods this knowledge has been used. Our analysis identifies four complementary pathways through which LEK informs conservation management: reconstructing multi-decadal population changes, documenting spatial contraction and habitat loss, detecting extreme rarity and local extirpation, and characterizing intrinsic sensitivity to exploitation based on life-history traits. Despite growing methodological rigor, freshwater systems and African fisheries remain critically underrepresented, and formal integration of LEK into fisheries governance and biodiversity assessment remains the exception rather than the rule. We propose a practical three-stage framework to operationalize LEK within existing management and conservation systems. Recognizing fishing communities as legitimate co-producers of ecological knowledge is both scientifically necessary and an equity imperative for achieving global biodiversity commitments under the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework.

Biodiversity↗
PubMed2026

What health are we talking about? Biodiversity as the missing link between One Health and Planetary Health.

Health has become a central term in global sustainability policy, yet it is often used without sufficient conceptual precision. Public health, global health, One Health, EcoHealth, GeoHealth, and Planetary Health each emphasize different dimensions of the relationship between humans, animals, and the environment. In policy contexts, however, these distinctions are frequently blurred. We argue that biodiversity is often treated as an environmental co-benefit rather than as a foundational determinant of health. This weakens the implementation of One Health approaches because biodiversity underpins disease regulation, immune system development, food and water security, ecosystem functioning, resilience, and climate adaptation. At the same time, biodiversity provides a critical link between One Health and broader Planetary Health challenges, including global environmental change and the transgression of planetary boundaries. Future health and sustainability policies should move beyond generic references to health and explicitly recognize biodiversity as part of preventive health systems.

Biodiversity↗