The Art of Science

March
2025

My first post is inspired by my uncle who recently passed; Clemens-August Brüggemann. He took over the incredible “Landgasthof Haarmühle” from my grandparents and it is now in the 4th generation. He was extremely passionate about the surrounding nature and was very involved in sharing its history and conserving it: the Witte Venn is a protected recreational area which crosses the border between the Netherlands and Ahaus, Germany. It is a unique landscape consisting of heath, moorland and grassland and is home to a large diversity of plant and animal species. In addition, there are about 50 Scottish Highland cattle that maintain this landscape.

 

Cattle are often negatively perceived, as they are a major source of greenhouse gas emissions5. This is as a result of their digestive process, including enteric fermentation in the rumen, which is the biggest source of global emissions by livestock1. However, few people are aware that cattle can also have significant positive impacts on environments, including increasing biodiversity8,7. Incorporating grazing can lower dominance and increase evenness of various animal communities1, especially arthropods (e.g. insects, spiders, mites etc.) and increase the number of floral families. Furthermore, by feeding on shrubby or woody saplings, they aid in preventing wood encroachment1 in grasslands. They can even regulate cascades to other consumers, including termites, rodents, ticks, fleas and pathogens8. The impact that the cattle will have is very context dependent; including landscape and management practices such as stocking densities, species8 and feed2.

"Cattle in the Witte Ven"

  1. Ancillotto, L., Festa, F., De Benedetta, F., Cosentino, F., Pejic, B. and Russo, D., 2021. Free-ranging livestock and a diverse landscape structure increase bat foraging in mountainous landscapes. Agroforestry Systems, 95, pp.407-418.
  2. Broucek, J., 2014. Production of methane emissions from ruminant husbandry: a review. Journal of Environmental Protection, 5(15), p.1482.
  3. Grossi, G., Goglio, P., Vitali, A. and Williams, A.G., 2019. Livestock and climate change: impact of livestock on climate and mitigation strategies. Animal Frontiers, 9(1), pp.69-76.
  4. Malandra, F., Vitali, A., Urbinati, C. et al. Patterns and drivers of forest landscape change in the Apennines range, Italy. Reg Environ Change 19, 1973–1985 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-019-01531-6
  5. Smith, P., Bustamante, M., Ahammad, H., Clark, H., Dong, H., Elsiddig, E.A., Haberl, H., Harper, R., House, J., Jafari, M. and Masera, O., 2014. Agriculture, forestry and other land use (AFOLU). In Climate change 2014: mitigation of climate change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (pp. 811-922). Cambridge University Press.
  6. Tongwane, M.I. and Moeletsi, M.E., 2021. Provincial cattle carbon emissions from enteric fermentation and manure management in South Africa. Environmental Research, 195, p.110833.
  7. Troiano, C., Buglione, M., Petrelli, S., Belardinelli, S., De Natale, A., Svenning, J.-C., & Fulgione, D. (2021). Traditional Free-Ranging Livestock Farming as a Management Strategy for Biological and Cultural Landscape Diversity: A Case from the Southern Apennines. Land, 10(9), 957. https://doi.org/10.3390/land10090957
  8. Young, T.P., Porensky, L.M., Riginos, C., Veblen, K.E., Odadi, W.O., Kimuyu, D.M., Charles, G.K. and Young, H.S., 2018. Relationships between cattle and biodiversity in multiuse landscape revealed by Kenya Long-Term Exclosure Experiment. Rangeland Ecology & Management, 71(3), pp.281-291.

April
2025

The human population continues to increase exponentially and with it, so are anthropogenic effects on ecosystems. More people means increased urbanisation and more agriculture to keep up with food supply and demand, resulting in decreasing natural landscapes and the destruction of ecosystem structures1. This further weakens urban ecosystem functioning and resilience10,9. An important way to reduce biodiversity loss and local extinctions3, as well as maintain the provision of ecosystem services4 is through landscape connectivity. This is described as the degree to which a landscape facilitates or restricts the movement among resource patches. The term, therefore, includes both structural properties of the landscape, as well as its effect on the movement of organisms (behavioural process)8. 

"It's all about connections"

  1. Field, R.D. & Parrott, L. (2017) ‘Multi-ecosystem services networks: A new perspective for assessing landscape connectivity and resilience’, Ecological Complexity, 32, pp.31-41.
  2. Hilty, J., Worboys, G.L., Keeley, A., Woodley, S., Lausche, B.J., Locke, H., Carr, M., Pulsford, I., Pittock, J., White, J.W. & Theobald, D.M. (2020) ‘Guidelines for conserving connectivity through ecological networks and corridors’, Best Practice Protected Area Guidelines, Series No. 30.
  3. Hyseni, C., Heino, J., Bini, L.M., Bjelke, U. and Johansson, F., 2021. The importance of blue and green landscape connectivity for biodiversity in urban ponds. Basic and Applied Ecology, 57, pp.129-145.
  4. Mitchell, M.G., Bennett, E.M. & Gonzalez, A. (2013) ‘Linking landscape connectivity and ecosystem service provision: current knowledge and research gaps’, Ecosystems, 16, pp.894-908.
  5. Nyström, M. & Folke, C. (2001) ‘Spatial resilience of coral reefs’, Ecosystems, 4 (5), pp. 406–417.
  6. Richards, N. (2021) ‘Why the Kruger Park is demolishing artificial water sources’, The Citizen, 26 March. Available at: https://www.citizen.co.za/news/south-africa/why-the-kruger-park-is-demolishing-artificial-water-sources/. (Accessed: 11.03.2025)
  7. SANParks (2009) Media Release: KNP to close more artificial water holes. Available at: https://www.sanparks.org/news/media-release-knp-to-close-more-artificial-water-holes. (Accessed: 11.03.2025)
  8. Taylor, P.D., Fahrig, L. & With, K.A. (2006) ‘Landscape connectivity: a return to the basics’ Conservation Biology Series, Cambridge, 14, p.29.
  9. Wang, S., Wu, M., Hu, M., Fan, C., Wang, T. & Xia, B. (2021) ‘Promoting landscape connectivity of highly urbanized area: An ecological network approach’, Ecological Indicators, 125, p.107487.
  10. Zhou, X., Wang, Y.C. (2011) ‘Spatial-temporal dynamics of urban green space in response to rapid urbanization and greening policies’. Landscape and Urban Planning, 100 (3), pp. 268–277.

It is, however, important to note that landscape connectivity can also have negative impacts if not implemented correctly and is highly context and species-specific8. An example of where this went terribly wrong can be taken from the Kruger National Park, South Africa. In the 1900s, a total of 53 artificial water holes were created over several years, to increase the water access for animals6. This, however, had massive consequences; it led to several ecological problems such as erosion and other environmental degradation and increased the grazing competition between the abundant herbivores and rare antelope such as roan and sable. Drastic measures had to be taken to demolish certain artificial water holes7. 

 

If you would like to read more on the topic, IUCN created a publication titled “Guidelines for conserving connectivity through ecological networks and corridors” : 

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jamie-Pittock/

Landscape connectivity can be achieved through several landscape elements including habitat patches (nodes) and links between them; either physical (e.g. habitat corridors) or functional connections, such as species or gene dispersal or water flow. How these elements are arranged as well as the strengths of the links effect how they will support the resilience of the landscape1 (in other words how it will recover after disturbance5). An example of landscape connectivity which helps buffer the negative effects of urbanisation, is urban greening (green spaces such as parks, forests) as well as “bluing” (e.g. through ponds and rivers), connected by corridors which allow organisms to disperse between locations3. Small stepping stones can even be created by simply covering walls or roofs with plants.

publication/342749223_Guidelines_for_conserving_connectivity_through_ecological_networks_and_corridors/links/5f057da74585155050947d43/Guidelines-for-conserving-connectivity-through-ecological-networks-and-corridors.pdf

May 2025

"Where humans and wildlife meet"

Human-wildlife conflict is described as direct interactions between humans and wildlife, with adverse outcomes for one or both parties. This matter includes a large variety of animals and situations. These circumstances often result from the co-occurrence of humans and wildlife in a shared landscape, in search of limited resources₁.

 

Costs on the local people can include a depredation of livestock or game, raiding of crops, the destruction of food storages, attacks on humans, transmissions of diseases and/or indirect opportunity costs₄. In turn, humans may respond with lethal control to an extent which can cause major wildlife decline and even extinctions₇. Declines in large predators can have further major cascading consequences for other species as well as ecosystem services₁₀.

 

Human-wildlife conflict can be traced back to our earliest records of history₅, but as resource availability and human and animal behaviour has and continues to change with climate change, this issue is increasing globally₂. Furthermore, climate change also increases resource scarcity and forces people and animals to share increasingly highly populated areas₁.

 

Finding a balance in protecting endangered species with satisfying the needs of local communities is essential for resolving this conflict. Management strategies include preventing these conflicts through the use of lethal control (e.g. legally sanctioned hunting or selective harvesting)₃₈ and nonlethal measures (such as fencing, livestock corrals and guard animals)₉.

 

NOTE: Check out an incredible foundation based in SA (where I worked as a volunteer), which addresses this topic: Cheetah Outreach (https://cheetah.co.za/)

 

Another way is to mitigate the impacts after the conflict occurred. This can be achieved through compensation; a widely used tool in which affected people are reimbursed for lost livestock or crops through monetary or non-monetary (e.g. replacement of animals or food) means₆.

  1. Abrahms, B. 2021. Human-wildlife conflict under climate change. Science, 373(6554), 484-485.
  2. Abrahms, B., Carter, N.H., Clark-Wolf, T.J., Gaynor, K.M., Johansson, E., McInturff, A., Nisi, A.C., Rafiq, K. & West, L. 2023. Climate change as a global amplifier of human–wildlife conflict. Nature Climate Change, 13, 224–234. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-023-01608-5
  3. Conover, M.R. 2001. Resolving human-wildlife conflicts: the science of wildlife damage management. CRC press.
  4. Dickman, A.J. 2010. Complexities of conflict: the importance of considering social factors for effectively resolving human–wildlife conflict. Animal conservation, 13(5), 458-466.
  5. Guthrie, R.D. 2005. The nature of Paleolithic art. University of Chicago Press.
  6. Nyhus, P.J. 2005. “Bearing the costs of human-wildlife conflict: the challenges of compensation schemes”, in Nyhus, P.J., Osofsky, S.A., Ferraro, P., Madden, F. & Fischer, H. People and Wildlife: Conflict or Co-existence? Cambridge University Press, 9:7, pp.107-121.
  7. Nyhus, P.J. 2016. Human–wildlife conflict and coexistence. Annual review of environment and resources, 41(1), 143-171.
  8. Ravenelle, J. & Nyhus, P.J. 2017. Global patterns and trends in human–wildlife conflict compensation. Conservation Biology, 31, 1247-1256. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12948
  9. Reidinger Jr., R.F. & Miller, J.E. 2013. Wildlife damage management: prevention, problem solving, and conflict resolution. JHU Press.
  10. Ripple W.J., Estes, J.A., Beschta, R.L., Wilmers, C.C., Ritchie, E.G., Hebblewhite, M., Berger, J., Elmhagen, B., Letnic, M., Nelson, M.P., Schmitz, O.J., Smith, D.W., Wallach, A.D. & Wirsing, A.J. 2014. Status and ecological effects of the world’s largest carnivores. Science 343. doi: 10.1126/science.1241484
  11. Stokstad, E. 2019. ‘Germany's wolves are on the rise thanks to a surprising ally: the military’, Science, February.

 

An example which has caused much discussion in Germany is the presence of the wolves. During the 19th century, wolves were wiped out in Germany for hunting livestock. However, in addition to an increase in abandoned farmland in Eastern Europe, new European laws were implemented in the 1980s and 1990s. This led to a recovery of this incredible species and their numbers are still rising₁₁. 

 

There are unfortunately also many more examples with extremely sad endings, including that of the tigers in Asia. In China, around ten thousand people were killed or injured by tigers, eventually leading Mao Zedong to declare war on these animals and leading to the eradication of almost all of China’s tigers₅. These examples show the significant impact that the government and laws/policies can have.

June
2025

"More than just trees: The Importance of Forests"

Why Forests Matter – And How They’re Changing

Forests are some of the most important ecosystems on our planet. Not only do they provide food, timber, and habitat, but they also play a crucial role in regulating the climate13. One of their most vital services is acting as carbon sinks—they absorb large amounts of carbon dioxide (a major greenhouse gas) from the atmosphere and store it in their biomass and soils10.

 

However, as the climate warms, forests are facing new and growing challenges. Rising temperatures, more frequent droughts, and increasing disturbances (such as fires and pests) are expected to reduce tree growth and limit forests’ ability to store carbon14. That’s why many scientists, including myself, are working to better understand how different tree species cope with drought and water stress by studying their hydraulic traits—characteristics that influence how trees move and store water. Knowing which species are best adapted to withstand harsher, drier conditions is becoming essential for sustainable forest management and future planting strategies.

  1. Augusto, L., De Schrijver, A., Vesterdal, L., Smolander, A., Prescott, C. and Ranger, J. 2015. Influences of evergreen gymnosperm and deciduous angiosperm tree species on the functioning of temperate and boreal forests. Biological reviews, 90(2), pp.444-466.
  2. Barbati, A., Marchetti, M., Chirici, G. and Corona, P. 2014. European Forest Types and Forest Europe SFM indicators: Tools for monitoring progress on forest biodiversity conservation. Forest Ecology and Management, 321, pp.145-157.
  3. Batista, J.L. & Maguire, D.A. 1998. Modeling the spatial structure of tropical forests. Forest ecology and management, 110(1-3), pp.293-314.
  4. Brown C, Law R, Illian JB, Burslem DFR, 2011. Linking ecological processes with spatial and non-spatial patterns in plant communities. Journal of Ecology, 99(6):1402–14. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.13652745.2011.01877.x
  5. Choat, B., Jansen, S., Brodribb, T. J., Cochard, H., Delzon, S., Bhaskar, R., Bucci, S.J., Feild, T.S., Gleason, S.M., Hacke, U.G., Jacobson, A.L., Lens, F., Maherali, H., Martinez-Vilalta, J., Mayr, S., Mencuccini, M., Mitchell, P.J., Nardini, A., Pittermann, J., Pratt, R.B., Sperry, J.S., Westoby, M., Wright, I.J. and Zanne, A.E. 2012. Global convergence in the vulnerability of forests to drought. Nature, 491, 752–755. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature11688
  6. Franklin, J. F., Spies, T. A., Van Pelt, R., Carey, A.B., Thornburgh, D.A., Rae Berg, D., Harmon, M.E., Keetan, W.S., Shaw, D.C., Bible, K., Jiquan, C. 2002. Disturbances and structural development of natural forest ecosystems with silvicultural implications, using Douglas-fir forests as an example. Forest Ecology and Management, 155(1–3), 399–423. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-1127(01)00575-8
  7. Gamfeldt, L., Snäll, T., Bagchi, R., Jonsson, M., Gustafsson, L.,Kjellander, P., Ruiz-Jaen, M., Fröberg, M., Stendahl, J., Philipson, C.D., Mikusiński, G., Andersson, E., Westerlund, B., Andrén, H., Moberg, F., Moen, J. and Bengtsson, J. 2013. Higher levels of multiple ecosystem services are found in forests with more tree species. Nature Commununications,  4:1340. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms2328
  8. Hui, G., Zhang, G., Zhao, Z. and Yang, A. 2019. Methods of forest structure research: A review. Current Forestry Reports, 5, pp.142-154.
  9. Lindenmayer, D.B., Mackey, B.G., Mullen, I.C., McCarthy, M.A., Gill, A.M., Cunningham, R.B. and Donnelly, C.F. 1999. Factors affecting stand structure in forests–are there climatic and topographic determinants?. Forest Ecology and Management, 123(1), pp.55-63.
  10. Pan, Y., Birdsey, R. A., Fang, J., et al. 2011. A large and persistent carbon sink in the world’s forests. Science, 333(6045), 988–993. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1201609
  11. Petruzzello, Melissa. "What’s the Difference Between Angiosperms and Gymnosperms?". Encyclopedia Britannica, 4 Apr. 2018, https://www.britannica.com/story/whats-the-difference-between-angiosperms-and-gymnosperms. Accessed 15 June 2025.
  12. Spies, T.A. 1998. Forest structure: a key to the ecosystem.
  13. Thompson, I. D., Mackey, B., McNulty, S., & Mosseler, A. 2009. Forest resilience, biodiversity, and climate change. Technical Series No. 43, Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal.
  14. Vose, J.M., Peterson, D.L., Domke, G.M., Fettig, C.J., Joyce, L.A., Keane, R.E., Luce, C.H., Prestemon, J.P., Band, L.E., Clark, J.S. and Cooley, N.E. 2018. "Forests". In: Reidmiller, DR; Avery, CW; Easterling, DR; Kunkel, KE; Lewis, KLM; Maycock, TK; Stewart, BC, eds. 2018. Impacts, Risks, and Adaptation in the United States: Fourth National Climate Assessment, Volume II. Washington, DC: US Global Change Research Program. pp. 232-267., 2, pp.232-267.

Forest Structure: A Living, Layered System

Forests are not just collections of trees; they’re dynamic systems with complex structures. Forest structure refers to how trees and other plants are distributed and how their physical traits—such as height, crown size, and spacing—interact with one another and the environment6.

 

This structure influences everything from biodiversity to productivity, habitat availability, and the delivery of ecosystem services7,8. Importantly, forest structure is shaped over long periods through processes like disturbance (e.g., storms, fire, logging), regeneration, and species interactions12,4. For instance, tree establishment depends on seed dispersal, predation, and successful germination. Canopy cover affects how much sunlight reaches the forest floor—often the most limiting factor for plant growth in shaded understories. And tree mortality, which results from competition, is influenced by the age, size, species identity, and growth rate of neighbouring trees3. 

 

Understanding these patterns and processes helps us appreciate forests not just as scenic backdrops but as active, ever-evolving ecosystems.

Not All Forests—or Trees—Are the Same

Forests come in many forms around the world—temperate, tropical, mangrove, boreal, floodplain, and swamp forests, to name just a few. They are often classified based on the types of tree communities that dominate them2, but also by the kinds of trees they contain: angiosperms (broad-leaved flowering trees), gymnosperms (conifers), or a mix of both.

 

These two major tree groups differ in fundamental ways. Angiosperms produce seeds inside flowers that are often enclosed in fruit. Gymnosperms—an older evolutionary lineage—produce seeds that are exposed or “naked”11. Angiosperms also tend to be deciduous, shedding their leaves in autumn, while gymnosperms are typically evergreen, keeping their needle-like leaves year-round1. These differences in form and function influence how each group responds to stress, competes for resources, and survives in changing environments5.

July 2025

In conservation and ecology, researchers (myself included) often speak passionately—and at length—about biodiversity, its importance, and the urgent need to preserve it. But why is there so much focus on this topic, and why has it gained increasing attention in recent years?

 

What Is Biodiversity?

Biodiversity refers to the variety (= diversity) of life (= bio) on Earth. It includes everything from plants and animals to microorganisms like bacteria, as well as the ecosystems they form—communities of organisms interacting with each other and their physical environment3.

 

Why Is Biodiversity Important?

Countless studies have shown that biodiversity is a key driver of ecosystem functions (EF)—the natural processes that keep ecosystems running5;9 —as well as ecosystem services (ES)—the benefits ecosystems provide to people6. While EF focuses on the ecosystem itself, ES is more human-centered1. Understanding how biodiversity influences these ecological processes helps us see how biodiversity management affects the delivery of goods and services that are essential for human wellbeing and economic stability1. These services are typically grouped into four categories:

  • Provisioning services – food, raw materials, freshwater
  • Regulating services – carbon storage, air and water purification, pollination
  • Supporting services – habitat creation, soil formation, genetic diversity maintenance
  • Cultural services – recreation, mental health, tourism, inspiration for art and design11

So, when biodiversity declines, it's not just wildlife at risk—our economies, health, and social systems are affected too. It also compromises the resilience of marine and terrestrial ecosystems, making them less able to cope with disturbances4.

The Biodiversity Crisis

Despite our dependence on it, biodiversity is in crisis—mainly due to human activity. Current extinction rates are estimated to be up to 1,000 times higher than natural background rates8,2. Many scientists warn that we are now entering the sixth mass extinction, occurring at an alarmingly fast pace compared to previous ones that unfolded over millions of years10. If trends continue, up to 50% of all species could be lost by the end of this century7,10.

 

The major drivers of global biodiversity loss include:

  • Expansion of agriculture
  • Climate change (especially rising ocean temperatures, acidification, and altered currents)
  • Overexploitation of marine resources
  • Urbanisation
  • Spread of invasive species4

Land-use change alone threatens 85% of species at risk, primarily due to habitat loss and fragmentation4. As human populations grow, so does our demand for land, food, and other resources, along with increased greenhouse gas emissions that accelerate climate change. In turn, climate change fuels more frequent and intense natural disasters—droughts, floods, wildfires, and storms13.

 

A Dangerous Loop

While these forces directly threaten biodiversity, it is biodiversity itself that holds the power to reduce their impacts—especially climate change. Biodiversity strengthens the resilience, resistance, and long-term stability of ecosystems across scales. It is both a casualty and a key solution in this global crisis. And that paradox highlights just how vital it is to protect it.

  1. Brockerhoff, E.G., Barbaro, L., Castagneyrol, B., Forrester, D.I., Gardiner, B., González-Olabarria, J.R., Lyver, P.O.B., Meurisse, N., Oxbrough, A., Taki, H. and Thompson, I.D. (2017). Forest biodiversity, ecosystem functioning and the provision of ecosystem services. Biodiversity and Conservation, 26, 3005-3035.
  2. Brooks, T.M., Mittermeier, R.A., Da Fonseca, G.A., Gerlach, J., Hoffmann, M., Lamoreux, J.F., Mittermeier, C.G., Pilgrim, J.D. and Rodrigues, A.S. (2006). Global biodiversity conservation priorities. Science, 313, 58-61.
  3. Currie, W.S. (2011). Units of nature or processes across scales? The ecosystem concept at age 75. New Phytologist, 190, 21–34
  4. Hald-Mortensen, C. (2023). The main drivers of biodiversity loss: a brief overview. Journal of Ecology and Natural Resources, 7, 000346.
  5. Hooper, D.U., Stuart Chapin III, F. Ewel, J.J., Hector, A., Inchausti, P., Lavorel, S., Lawton, J.H., Lodge, D.M., Loreau, M., Naeem, S., Schmid, B., Setälä, H., Symstad, A.J., Vandermeer, J.J., Wardle, D. (2005). Effects of biodiversity on ecosystem functioning: a consensus of current knowledge. Ecological Monographs, 75, 3–35
  6. Liquete, C., Cid, N., Lanzanova, D., Grizzetti, B. and Reynaud, A. (2016). Perspectives on the link between ecosystem services and biodiversity: the assessment of the nursery function. Ecological Indicators, 63, 249-257.
  7. Myers, N. (1993). Biodiversity and the Precautionary Principle. Ambio, 22(2/3), 74–79. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4314050
  8. Pimm, L.,  Russell, G. J. , Gittleman, J. L. (1995) T. M. Brooks, Science, 269, 347.
  9. Schulze, E.D. & Mooney, H.A. eds. (2012). Biodiversity and ecosystem function. Springer Science & Business Media.
  10. Singh, J.S. (2002). The biodiversity crisis: a multifaceted review. Current Science, 638-647.
  11. TEEB. 2015. The Economics of Ecosystems & Biodiversity: Ecosystem Services. Hosted by UNEP TEEB office, Geneva, Switzerland. URL: http://www.teebweb.org/resources/ecosystem-services/. Last accessed May 2015.
  12. Thompson, I., Mackey, B., McNulty, S., Mosseler, A. (2009). Forest Resilience, Biodiversity, and Climate Change: a synthesis of the biodiversity/resilience/stability relationship in forest ecosystems. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal. Technical Series no. 43. 1-67.
  13. Vernich, D. (2025). “Is climate change increasing the risk of disasters?” WWF, Available at: https://www.worldwildlife.org/stories/is-climate-change-increasing-the-risk-of-disasters (Assessed: 07.07.2025).

"The Value of Biodiversity"

August 2025

"The Hidden Architecture of Nature"

  1. Costanza, R. & Mageau, M., 1999. What is a healthy ecosystem?. Aquatic ecology, 33(1), 105-115.
  2. Fu, B., Wang, S., Su, C. & Forsius, M., 2013. Linking ecosystem processes and ecosystem services. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 5(1), 4-10.
  3. Golley, F.B., 2000. 1.2 “Ecosystem Structure”. Handbook of ecosystem theories and management, p.21.
  4. Holling, C.S., 1986. The resilience of terrestrial ecosystems: Local surprise and global change. In: Clark, W.C. & Munn, R.E. (eds) “Sustainable Development of the Biosphere”. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
  5. Jochum, M., Fischer, M., Isbell, F. et al., 2000. The results of biodiversity–ecosystem functioning experiments are realistic. Nature Ecology & Evolution 4, 1485–1494. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-020-1280-9
  6. Lyons, K.G., Brigham, C.A., Traut, B.H. & Schwartz, M.W., 2005. Rare species and ecosystem functioning. Conservation biology, 19(4), 1019-1024.
  7. Nicholson, E., Mace, G.M., Armsworth, P.R., Atkinson, G., Buckle, S., Clements, T., Ewers, R.M., Fa, J.E., Gardner, T.A., Gibbons, J. and Grenyer, R., 2009. Priority research areas for ecosystem services in a changing world. Journal of Applied Ecology, 46(6), 1139-1144.
  8. Tilman, D., Isbell, F. & Cowles, J.M., 2014. Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning. Annual review of ecology, evolution, and systematics, 45(1), 471-493.
  9. Wallace, K.J., 2007. Classification of ecosystem services: problems and solutions. Biological conservation, 139(3-4), 235-246.
  10. Winemiller, K.O. & Polis, G.A., 1996. Food Webs: What Can They Tell Us About the World?. In: Polis, G.A. & Winemiller, K.O. (eds) Food Webs. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-7007-3_1

In my last post, I explored the importance of biodiversity for supporting ecosystem functions and the services nature provides us. Today, I want to look more closely at ecosystems themselves—what they are, how they work, and how this connects back to biodiversity. This leads us to a concept that’s central to my work: Biodiversity-Ecosystem Functioning (BEF).

 

Ecosystem services—like clean water, fertile soil, pollination, and climate regulation—depend on three key features of ecosystems: composition, structure, and processes7.

  • Composition refers to all the living (biotic) and non-living (abiotic) parts of the ecosystem.
  • Structure describes how these components are arranged in space9.
  • Processes are the interactions between these components, such as energy flow, water cycling, and nutrient movement6.

By understanding and managing these processes—and how they interact with the system’s components and structure—we can help maintain or improve the delivery of ecosystem services that people rely on2.

 

Ecosystems are what scientists call open systems. This means they constantly exchange energy, matter, and information with their surroundings. The word "system" also hints at something important: ecosystems have an internal organisation that helps them maintain structure and function even when the environment changes3. Constanza & Mageau (1999) built on this idea to define what makes an ecosystem "healthy." They describe health as the overall performance of a complex system, which depends on the behaviour of all its parts. According to them, a healthy ecosystem has three key features:

  • Organisation – the structure of the ecosystem, including the number and diversity of interactions between species.
  • Vigour – the level of activity in the ecosystem, such as how much biomass plants produce (i.e. how productive it is).
  • Resilience – the system’s ability to maintain its organisation and function despite stress or change4.

To study these features, ecologists often use trophic exchange networks, better known as food webs. These diagrams show "who eats whom" in an ecosystem and how energy and nutrients flow through different species10. Unlike simple food chains, food webs capture the complex and interconnected relationships between species. They’re useful for visualising the structure and processes of ecosystems and can even help us measure ecosystem health1.

 

So where does biodiversity fit into all this?

 

Biodiversity plays a critical role in shaping how ecosystems function8. As more species were lost, scientists became increasingly concerned about how this affects the services ecosystems provided—and in turn, our well-being. This led to the emergence of a key field in ecology over the last 25 years: Biodiversity-Ecosystem Functioning (BEF)5.

 

Most BEF studies involve experiments where communities with different levels of biodiversity are created, and researchers measure how ecosystem processes respond5. While many of these studies focus on specific parts of ecosystems, we now know that the effects of biodiversity loss are likely to ripple throughout entire ecosystems. That is why it is important to consider both above-ground and below-ground components and processes—because what happens underground (like root interactions or soil microbes) can be just as important for ecosystem stability as what we see above the surface.

October 2025

Farming in China: From the Green Revolution to a Greener Future

 

Agriculture has played a central role in China’s economic rise, helping to reduce hunger, poverty, and social inequality11. Much of this success can be traced back to Borlaug’s Green Revolution, which dramatically boosted crop yields. In China, grain production rose from about 250 kg per person in the 1960s to over 400 kg in the 2010s16. Remarkably, China’s farmers managed to feed 22% of the world’s population using only 9% of the world’s arable land—a phenomenon often called the “Miracle”3. By 2015, China became the first developing nation to halve its poverty rate6.

 

How Did China Achieve This?

 

Research suggests that this success was driven by the efficient integration of four key resources—sunlight, carbon dioxide, water, and soil nutrients—to maximise crop growth15;3. Studies show a strong link between chemical fertiliser use and higher grain production, during the 1980s and 1990s 8;14. Fertilisers supplemented essential nutrients and helped maintain soil fertility, especially in nutrient-depleted areas.

 

However, this progress came at a cost. Between 1980 and 2004, most of the increase in grain yield was linked to increased fertiliser use, and 54% of the global rise in fertiliser consumption occurred in China alone17. While this intensified production, it also led to environmental issues such as eutrophication, greenhouse gas emissions, and soil acidification13.

 

 

The New Challenge: Feeding a Nation Sustainably

 

Today, agriculture faces a new dilemma: increasing food production while protecting the environment and conserving natural resources. In densely populated and rapidly developing countries like China, this balance is especially difficult to maintain13.

 

In recent decades, grain yields have slowed, even as the use of nitrogen and phosphorus fertilisers continues to rise4. Part of the challenge is the structure of Chinese farming. Most crops are grown by hundreds of millions of smallholder farmers on tiny plots of land—averaging just 0.6 hectares per farm, with individual fields often as small as 0.1–0.3 hectares1.

 

This most likely resulted from the reintroduction of family farming based on the ‘household responsibility system’ (HRS) in the 1980s, which occurred after the abolition of the communes. The reform boosted productivity, but it also led to privatisation of environmental resources and a surge in illegal logging and deforestation2. Under Deng Xiaoping’s market reforms, industrialisation took off—even in rural areas—but often without environmental safeguards. Villages established small chemical factories that polluted rivers and soils, while many farmers left their land to seek work in cities. Those who remained relied increasingly on chemical inputs to maintain productivity12.

 

Toward Sustainable and “Green” Farming

 

In recent years, China has started to pivot toward sustainable agriculture through new policies and scientific innovation11. One major initiative was the “Zero Growth” Program for fertiliser use, launched by the Ministry of Agriculture in 201510. The goal was to restrain fertiliser use at 2015 levels, allowing less than a 1% increase through 2019, and achieving no further growth by 2020—without reducing yields. Thousands of field trials supported this transition, showing that efficient fertiliser use can maintain productivity while reducing pollution9;7. 

At the same time, modern crop varieties and improved agronomic practices have helped farmers increase yields while using fewer resources5. And while early market reforms harmed the environment, they also opened China to global ideas and technologies. Farmers are now exploring eco-friendly and organic farming, along with the production of “green food”—crops grown under stricter environmental standards12. In conclusion, China’s agricultural focus is shifting from intensive to efficient—from maximising output at any cost to balancing productivity with sustainability. 

 

  1. Chen, X.P., Cui, Z.L., Vitousek, P.M., Cassman, K.G., Matson, P.A., Bai, J.S. & Zhang, F.S. 2011. Integrated soil–crop system management for food security. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 108, 6399–6404.
  2. Edmonds, R. 1994. ‘China’s Environment: Problems and Prospects’, in D. Dwyer (ed.) China, the Next Decades, 156–185. Hemel Hempstead, UK: Longman.
  3. Fan, M.S., Shen, J.B., Yuan, L.X., Jiang, R.F., Chen, X.P., Davies, W.J. & Zhang, F.S. 2012. Improving crop productivity and resource use efficiency to ensure food security and environmental quality in China. Journal of Experimental Botany, 63, 13–24.
  4. FAO, 2010. FAOSTAT Statistical Databases. Agriculture Data, /http://apps.fao.org/page/collections?subset=agricultureS.
  5. George, T. 2014. Why crop yields in developing countries have not kept pace with advances in agronomy? Global Food Security, 3, 49–58.
  6. Huang, J.K. & Yang, G.L., 2017. Understanding recent challenges and new food policy in China. Global Food Security, 12, 119–126.
  7. Hvistendahl, M. 2010. China’s push to add by subtracting fertilizer. Science, 327, 801.
  8. Jiao, X.Q., Lyu, Y., Wu, X.B., Li, H.G., Cheng, L.Y., Zhang, C.C., Yuan, L.X., Jiang, R.F., Jiang, B.W., Rengel, Z., Zhang, F.S., Davies, W.J. & Shen, J.B. 2016. Grain production versus resource and environmental costs: Towards increasing sustainability of nutrient use in China. Journal of Experimental Botany, 67, 4935–4949.
  9. Ju, X.T., Xing, G.X., Chen, X.P., Zhang, S.L., Zhang, L.J., Liu, X.J., Cui, Z.L., Yin, B., Christie, P., Zhu, Z.L. & Zhang, F.S. 2009. Reducing environmental risk by improving N management in intensive Chinese agricultural systems. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of the United States of America, 106, 3041–3046.
  10. Liu, X.J., Vitousek, P.M., Chang, Y., Zhang, W.F., Matson, P. & Zhang, F.S. 2015. Evidence for a historic change occurring in China. Environmental Science and Technology, 1, 505–506.
  11. Mongol, N. & Zhang, F.S. 2018. The transformation of agriculture in China: Looking back and looking forward. Journal of integrative agriculture, 17(4), 755-764.
  12. Sanders, R. 2006. A market road to sustainable agriculture? Ecological agriculture, green food and organic agriculture in China. Development and Change, 37(1), 201-226.
  13. Shen, J.B., Li, C.J., Mi, G.H., Li, L., Yuan, L.X., Jiang, R.F. & Zhang, F.S., 2012. Maximizing root/rhizosphere efficiency to improve crop productivity and nutrient use efficiency in intensive agriculture of China. Journal of Experimental Botany, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jxb/ers342.
  14. Su, Y.S. 2012. The historical change in soil productivity of farmland on the North China Plain. MSc thesis, China Agricultural University, China. (in Chinese)
  15. Yang, H.S. 2006. Resource management, soil fertility and sustainable crop production: Experiences of China. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 1, 27–33.
  16. Zhang, J.H. 2011. China’s success in increasing per capita food production. Journal of Experimental Botany, 62, 3707–3711.
  17. Zhang, F., Cui, Z., Chen, X., Ju, X., Shen, J., Chen, Q., Liu, X., Zhang, W., Mi, G., Fan, M. & Jiang, R., 2012. Integrated nutrient management for food security and environmental quality in China. Advances in Agronomy, 116, 1–40.

"China’s Agricultural Journey"

November 2025

  1. Baker, H.G. 1959. The contribution of autecological and genecological studies to our knowledge of the past migrations of plants. The American Naturalist, 93(871), 255-272.
  2. Birks, H.J.B. & Birks, H.H. 1980. Quaternary palaeoecology, 289. London: Edward Arnold.
  3. Botkin, D.B., Saxe, H., Araújo, M.B., Betts, R., Bradshaw, R.H., Cedhagen, T., Chesson, P., Dawson, T.P., Etterson, J.R., Faith, D.P. & Ferrier, S. 2007. Forecasting the effects of global warming on biodiversity. Bioscience, 57(3), 227-236.
  4. Bottjer, D.J. 2016. Paleoecology: past, present and future. John Wiley & Sons.
  5. Broecker, W.S. & Van Donk, J. 1970. Insolation changes, ice volumes, and the O18 record in deep‐sea cores. Reviews of Geophysics, 8(1), 169-198.
  6. Cloud Jr, P.E. 1959. Paleoecology: retrospect and prospect. Journal of Paleontology, 926-962.
  7. Hu, F.S., Hampe, A. & Petit, R.J. 2009. Paleoecology meets genetics: deciphering past vegetational dynamics. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 7(7), 371-379.
  8. Hunter Jr, M.L., Jacobson Jr, G.L. & WEBB III., Thompson. 1988. Paleoecology and the coarse‐filter approach to maintaining biological diversity. Conservation biology, 2(4), 375-385.

Throughout Earth’s history, global climate has fluctuated between very different states. Some of these shifts were so dramatic that they triggered repeated glacial and interglacial cycles5;8, many of which were linked to long-term changes in Earth’s orbit and other astronomical variations. These alternating cold and warm periods reshaped regional environments and influenced where plants, animals, and other organisms lived.

 

Understanding how life and habitats interacted in the past is the focus of paleoecology6. In simple terms, paleoecology aims “to understand and interpret the life processes, sociology, behaviour, habitat conditions, biogeography and evolution of pre-historic organisms, communities and biota”6. Because this field bridges biology, geology, and climate science, it relies on a very interdisciplinary approach.

 

Much of paleoecology is built on clues preserved in sedimentary rocks4. One of the most informative sources is fossils—everything from plant remains to tiny pollen grains stored in lake sediments and peat deposits2;8. Fossils became especially important in the 19th century with the development of the geological timescale and Darwin’s “On the Origin of Species”, which drew heavily on fossil evidence to explain evolution4.

 

Fossil records allow scientists to reconstruct where species once lived1;7 and to test ecological theories by comparing past changes with modern patterns. They’re also used to evaluate climate and biodiversity models and even to assess predictions of future changes3;7. Today, genetic analysis adds another powerful layer—helping researchers trace past migrations and understand how plant communities responded to climate shifts through time. Combining genetic data with fossil evidence has become increasingly important for explaining how vegetation changed during past climate transitions, and it also supports modern conservation planning by highlighting long-term ecological patterns7.

 

In conclusion, paleoecology doesn’t just tell the story of life’s past—it offers a window into our future. By revealing how ecosystems once responded to major climate shifts, it provides essential clues to how today’s rapidly changing world may evolve, especially as human-driven disruptions to the carbon cycle intensify4. 

"Digging Into the Past to Understand Our Future"

Drawing derived from "Kuriosis": https://kuriosis.com/products/antique-dinosaurs-poster srsltid=AfmBOoo-1IWi3gvElBSEluvx7azA4nYfQC4XevwzfMaG

© Copyright. All rights reserved.

Wir benötigen Ihre Zustimmung zum Laden der Übersetzungen

Wir nutzen einen Drittanbieter-Service, um den Inhalt der Website zu übersetzen, der möglicherweise Daten über Ihre Aktivitäten sammelt. Bitte überprüfen Sie die Details in der Datenschutzerklärung und akzeptieren Sie den Dienst, um die Übersetzungen zu sehen.