Advertisement

Ecological Research

, 21:794 | Cite as

Biodiversity loss and the taxonomic bottleneck: emerging biodiversity science

  • Ke Chung KimEmail author
  • Loren B. Byrne
Special Issue Global changes in terrestrial ecosystems

Abstract

Human domination of the Earth has resulted in dramatic changes to global and local patterns of biodiversity. Biodiversity is critical to human sustainability because it drives the ecosystem services that provide the core of our life-support system. As we, the human species, are the primary factor leading to the decline in biodiversity, we need detailed information about the biodiversity and species composition of specific locations in order to understand how different species contribute to ecosystem services and how humans can sustainably conserve and manage biodiversity. Taxonomy and ecology, two fundamental sciences that generate the knowledge about biodiversity, are associated with a number of limitations that prevent them from providing the information needed to fully understand the relevance of biodiversity in its entirety for human sustainability: (1) biodiversity conservation strategies that tend to be overly focused on research and policy on a global scale with little impact on local biodiversity; (2) the small knowledge base of extant global biodiversity; (3) a lack of much-needed site-specific data on the species composition of communities in human-dominated landscapes, which hinders ecosystem management and biodiversity conservation; (4) biodiversity studies with a lack of taxonomic precision; (5) a lack of taxonomic expertise and trained taxonomists; (6) a taxonomic bottleneck in biodiversity inventory and assessment; and (7) neglect of taxonomic resources and a lack of taxonomic service infrastructure for biodiversity science. These limitations are directly related to contemporary trends in research, conservation strategies, environmental stewardship, environmental education, sustainable development, and local site-specific conservation. Today’s biological knowledge is built on the known global biodiversity, which represents barely 20% of what is currently extant (commonly accepted estimate of 10 million species) on planet Earth. Much remains unexplored and unknown, particularly in hotspots regions of Africa, South Eastern Asia, and South and Central America, including many developing or underdeveloped countries, where localized biodiversity is scarcely studied or described. "Backyard biodiversity", defined as local biodiversity near human habitation, refers to the natural resources and capital for ecosystem services at the grassroots level, which urgently needs to be explored, documented, and conserved as it is the backbone of sustainable economic development in these countries. Beginning with early identification and documentation of local flora and fauna, taxonomy has documented global biodiversity and natural history based on the collection of "backyard biodiversity" specimens worldwide. However, this branch of science suffered a continuous decline in the latter half of the twentieth century, and has now reached a point of potential demise. At present there are very few professional taxonomists and trained local parataxonomists worldwide, while the need for, and demands on, taxonomic services by conservation and resource management communities are rapidly increasing. Systematic collections, the material basis of biodiversity information, have been neglected and abandoned, particularly at institutions of higher learning. Considering the rapid increase in the human population and urbanization, human sustainability requires new conceptual and practical approaches to refocusing and energizing the study of the biodiversity that is the core of natural resources for sustainable development and biotic capital for sustaining our life-support system. In this paper we aim to document and extrapolate the essence of biodiversity, discuss the state and nature of taxonomic demise, the trends of recent biodiversity studies, and suggest reasonable approaches to a biodiversity science to facilitate the expansion of global biodiversity knowledge and to create useful data on backyard biodiversity worldwide towards human sustainability.

Keywords

Biodiversity Ecosystem services Backyard biodiversity Biodiversity science Applied taxonomy 

References

  1. Alcorn JB (1993) Indigenous peoples and conservation. Conserv Biol 7:424–426Google Scholar
  2. Baldi A (1999) Biodiversity in Hungary: advantages and limitations of taxonomically complete faunal inventories. Nat Areas J 19:73–78Google Scholar
  3. Balmford A, Lyon AJE, Lang RM (2000) Testing the higher taxon approach to conservation planning in a megadiverse group: the macrofungi. Biol Conserv 93:209–217Google Scholar
  4. Balmford A, Bruner A, Cooper P, Costanza R, Farber S, Green RE, Jenkins M, Jefferies P, Jessamy V, Madden J, Munro K, Myers N, Naeem S, Paavola J, Rayment M, Rosendo S, Roughgarden J, Trumper K, Turner RK (2002) Economic reasons for conserving wild nature. Science 297:950–953PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Bauhin C (1623) Pinax theatri botanici. BaselGoogle Scholar
  6. Beattie AJ, Major JD, Oliver I (1993) Rapid biodiversity assessment: a review. In: Rapid biodiversity assessment: proceedings of the biodiversity assessment workshop 1993. Research Unit for Biodiversity and Bioresources, Macquuarie University, Sydney, pp 4–14Google Scholar
  7. Benbrooks C, Gross ME III, Holloran JM, Hansen MK, Maquardt S (1996) Pest management at the crossroads. Consumers Union, YonkersGoogle Scholar
  8. Berkes F (2004) Rethinking community-based conservation. Conserv Biol 18:621–630Google Scholar
  9. Bertrand Y, Pleijel F, Rouse GW (2006) Taxonomic surrogacy in biodiversity assessments, and the meaning of Linnean ranks. System Biodivers 4:149–159Google Scholar
  10. Biesmeijer JC, Roberts SPM, Reemer M, Ohlemiller R, Edwards M, Peeters T, Schaffer AD, Potts SG, Keenkers R, Thomas CD, Settele J, Kumin WE (2006) Parallel declines in pollinators and insect-pollinated plants in Britain and the Netherlands. Science 313:351–354PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Boone JH, Mahan CG, Kim KC (2005) Biodiversity inventory: approaches, analysis, and synthesis. Technical Report NPS/NER/NRTR-2005/015. US Department Interior, National Park Service, Northeast Region, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  12. Botkin DB, Megonigal P, Sampson N (1997) Consideration of the state of ecosystem science and the art of ecosystem management: discussion paper. The Center for the Study of the Environment, Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program (SERDP)Google Scholar
  13. Broberg L (2003) Conserving ecosystems locally: a role for ecologists in land-use planning. Bioscience 53:670–673Google Scholar
  14. Brown LR (2006) Plan B 2.0: rescuing a planet under stress and a civilization in trouble. Norton, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  15. Brunfels O (1530) Herbarium vivae eicones, vol 1. ArgentGoogle Scholar
  16. Büchs W (ed) (2003) Biotic indicators for biodiversity and sustainable agriculture. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  17. Cavigelli MA, Robertson GP (2000) The functional significance of denitrifier community composition in a terrestrial ecosystem. Ecology 81:1402–1414Google Scholar
  18. CBD (Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity) (2006a) Sustaining life on earth: how the convention on biological diversity promotes nature and human well-being. CBD, MontrealGoogle Scholar
  19. CBD (Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity) (2006b) Global biodiversity outlook 2. CBD, MontrealGoogle Scholar
  20. Center for Wildlife Law (1996) Saving biodiversity: a status report on state laws, policies and programs. Defenders of Wildlife, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  21. Christensen NL, Bartuska AM, Brown JH, Carpenter S, D-Antonio C, Francis R, Franklin JF, MacMahon JA, Noss RF, Parsons DJ, Peterson CH, Turner MG, Woodmansee RG (1996) The report of the ecological society of America Committee on the scientific basis for ecosystem management. Ecol Appl 6:665–691Google Scholar
  22. Cohen JE (1995) How many people can the earth support? Norton, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  23. Cohen J (2005) Human population grows up. Sci Am 48–55Google Scholar
  24. Coleman DC, Hendrix PF (2001) Invertebrates as webmasters in ecosystems. CAB International, WallingfordGoogle Scholar
  25. Constanza R, d’Arge R, de Groot R, Farber S, Grasso M, Hannon B, Limburg K, Naheem S, O’Neill RV, Paruelo J, Raskin RG, Sutton P, van den Belt M (1997) The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387:253–260Google Scholar
  26. Czuzdi C, Szlavecz K (2002) Diplocardia patuxentis, a new earthworm species from Maryland, North America (Oligochaeta: Acanthodrilidae). Ann Zool Nat Hist Mus Hung 94:193–208Google Scholar
  27. Daily GC (ed) (1997) Nature’s services: societal dependence on natural ecosystems. Island, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  28. Daily GC, Ehrlich PR (1995) Population extinction and the biodiversity crisis. In: Perrings CA et al (eds) Biodiversity conservation. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 45–55Google Scholar
  29. Danks HV (1996) How to assess insect biodiversity without wasting your time. Document Series No. 5, Biological Survey of Canada (Terrestrial Arthropods), Ottawa, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  30. Debinski DM, Humphrey PS (1997) An integrated approach to biological diversity assessment. Nat Areas J 17:355–363Google Scholar
  31. Dirzo R, Loraeu M (2005) Biodiversity science evolves. Science 310:943Google Scholar
  32. Dirzo R, Raven PH (2003) Global state of biodiversity and loss. Annu Rev Environ Resour 28:137–167Google Scholar
  33. Dobson A (2005) Monitoring global rates of biodiversity change: challenges that arise in meeting the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) 2010 goals. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci 360:229–241Google Scholar
  34. Dower R, Ditz D, Faeth P, Johnson N, Kozlof K (1997) Frontiers of sustainability: environmentally sound agriculture, forestry, transportation, and power production. Island, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  35. Ehrlich PR (2004) Global changes and its influence on biodiversity. In: Casagrandi R, Melia P (eds) Ecologia. Atti del Xiii Congresso Nazionale della Societa Italiana di Ecolo (Como, 8–10 September 2003). Aracne, Rome, pp 35–45Google Scholar
  36. Ehrlich PR (2005) Twenty-first century systematics and the human predicament. Proc Calif Acad Sci 56(Suppl I):120–148Google Scholar
  37. Ehrlich PR, Ehrlicuh AH (2004) Collision course: population, profligacy, power and the struggle for sustainability. Island, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  38. Ehrlich PR, Wilson EO (1991) Biodiversity studies: science and policy. Science 253:758–762PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Eldredge N (ed) (1992) Systematics, ecology and the biodiversity crisis. Columbia University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  40. Farber S, Costanza R, Childers DL, Erickson J, Gross K, Grove M, Hopkinson CS, Kahn J, Pincetl JS, Troy A, Warren P, Wilson M (2006) Linking ecology and economics for ecosystem management. Bioscience 56:121–133Google Scholar
  41. Field CB (2001) Sharing the garden. Science 294:2490–2491PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Fischer J, Lindenmayer DB, Manning AD (2006) Biodiversity, ecosystem function, and resilience: ten guiding principles for commodity production landscapes. Front Ecol Environ 4:80–86Google Scholar
  43. Foddai D, Bonato L, Pereira LA, Minelli A (2003) Phylogeny and systematics of the Arrupinae (Chilopoda: Geophilomorpha: Mecistocephalidae) with the description of a new dwarfed species. J Nat Hist 37:1247–1267Google Scholar
  44. Gaston KJ, May RM (1992) Taxonomy of taxonomists. Nature 356:281–282Google Scholar
  45. Gaston KJ, Spicer JI (2004) Biodiversity: an introduction. Backwell, MaldenGoogle Scholar
  46. Godfray HCJ (2002) Challenges for taxonomy. Nature 417:17–19PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Gotelli NJ (2004) A taxonomic wish list for community ecology. Phil Trans R Soc Lond B 359:585–597Google Scholar
  48. Giampetro M (2004) Multi-scale integrated analysis of agroecosystems. CRC, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  49. Grifo F, Rosenthal J (ed) (1997) Biodiversity and human health. Island, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  50. Groombridge BE (ed) (1992) Global biodiversity, status of the Earth’s living resources. Chapman and Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  51. Grove SJ (2003) Maintaining data integrity in insect biodiversity assessment projects. J Insect Conserv 7:33–44Google Scholar
  52. Grumbine RE (1994) What is ecosystem management? Conserv Biol 8:27–38Google Scholar
  53. Grumbine RE (1997) Reflection on “what is ecosystem management?”. Conserv Biol 11:41–47Google Scholar
  54. Haas F, Häuser CL (2006) How many taxonomists are there? www.gti-kontakstelle.de/taxnonomy_E.html. 17 March 2006Google Scholar
  55. Hammond PM (1995) The current magnitude of biodiversity. In: Hawkworth DL, Kalin-Arroyo MT, Heywood VH (eds) Global biodiversity assessment. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp 113–138Google Scholar
  56. Heemsbergen DA, Berg MP, Loreau M, van Hal JR, Faber JH, Verhoef HA (2004) Biodiversity effects on soil processes explained by interspecific functional dissimilarity. Science 306:1019–1020PubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Heinz Center (H John Heinz III Center for Science, Economics and the Environment) (2002) The status of the nation’s ecosystems: measuring the lands, waters, and living resources of the United States. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  58. Heywood VH (ed) (1995) Global biodiversity assessment. United Nations Environment Programme. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  59. Holt RD (2006) Ecology: asymmetry and stability. Nature 442:252–253PubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. Hooper DU, Chapin FS III, Ewel JJ, Hector P, Inchausti AP, Lavorel S, Lawton JH, Lodge DM, Loreau M, Naeem S, Schmid B, Setala H, Symstad AJ, Vandermeer J, Wardle DA (2005) Effects of biodiversity on ecosystem functioning: a consensus of current knowledge. Ecol Monogr 75:3–35Google Scholar
  61. Hopkins GW, Frekleton RP (2002) Declines in the number of amateur and professional taxonomists: implications for conservation. Anim Conserv 5:245–249Google Scholar
  62. Humphries CJ, Williams PH, Vane-Wright RI (1995) Measuring biodiversity value for conservation. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 26:93–111Google Scholar
  63. Hunter ML (2005) A mesofilter conservation strategy to complement fine and coarse filters. Conserv Biol 19:1025–1029Google Scholar
  64. Huxley JS et al (1940) The new systematics. Clarendon, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  65. Imhoff ML, Bounoua L, Ricketts T, Loucks C, Harris R, Lawrence WT (2004) Global patterns in human consumption of net primary production. Nature 429:870–873PubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. Jeroen C, van den Bergh JM, Verbruggen H (1999) Spatial suitability, trade and indicators: an evaluation of the “Ecological footprint.” Ecol Econ 29:61–72Google Scholar
  67. Kellert SR (1993) Values and perceptions of invertebrates. Conserv Biol 7:845–855Google Scholar
  68. Kellert SR, Wilson EO (eds) (1993) The biophilia hypothesis. Island Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  69. Kim KC (1993) Biodiversity, conservation, and inventory: why insects matter. Biodivers Conserv 2:191–214Google Scholar
  70. Kim KC (1994) Entomology in the changing world: biodiversity and sustainable agriculture. Korean J Entomol 24:145–153Google Scholar
  71. Kim KC (1998) Biodiversity and environmental changes: a great challenge to humanity. In: Proceedings of the 1st international symposium on the geoenvironmental changes and biodiversity in the Northeast Asia, Seoul, 16–19 November 1998, pp 369–375Google Scholar
  72. Kim KC (2001) Biodiversity, our living world: your life depends on it. College of Agricultural Sciences, Cooperative Extension and Center for Biodiversity Research, Environmental Resources Research Institute, Penn State University, University ParkGoogle Scholar
  73. Kim KC (2005a) Biodiversity Inventory and Assessment of the National Guard Training Center at Fort Indiantown Gap (FIG-NGTC), Pennsylvania: Project 1 Invertebrate Biodiversity Inventory and Assessment (2002–2004): Final Report. To Fort Indiantown Gap National Training Center, PA Department of Military and Veterans Affairs, Environmental Division, Annville, PennsylvaniaGoogle Scholar
  74. Kim KC (2005b) Plenary lecture: biodiversity, humanity, and sustainability: a case for Korea’s DMZ ecosystems. The 5th Asia-Pacific Congress of Entomology, Jeju Island, South Korea, 18–21 October 2005Google Scholar
  75. Kim KC (2006a) Integrated biodiversity assessment center (IBAC): a proposal to facilitate taxonomic services in biodiversity assessment and measurements. The Pennsylvania State University, Institutes of the Environment, Center for BioDiversity ResearchGoogle Scholar
  76. Kim KC (2006b) A proposal for advancing exploration, assessment and conservation of bioresources in the Asia-Pacific World. The Pennsylvania State University, Institutes of the Environment, Center for BioDiversity ResearchGoogle Scholar
  77. Kim KC, Weaver RD (eds) (1994) Biodiversity and landscapes: a paradox of humanity. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  78. Knapp S (2000) What’s in a name? Nature 408:33PubMedGoogle Scholar
  79. Kosztarab M, Schaefer CW (eds) (1990) Systematics of the North American insects and arachnids: status and needs. Information Series 90-1, Virginia Agricultural Experiment Station, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VirginiaGoogle Scholar
  80. Kremen C (2005) Managing ecosystem services: what do we need to know about their ecology? Ecol Lett 8:468–479Google Scholar
  81. Lee I-K, Kim KC, Cho JM, Lee DW, Cho DS, Yoo JS (eds) (1994) Biodiversity Korea 2000: a strategy to save, study and sustainably use Korea’s biotic resources (in Korean). Minumsa, SeoulGoogle Scholar
  82. Levin S (2005) Self-organization and the emergence of complexity in ecological systems. Bioscience 55:1075–1079Google Scholar
  83. Lindroth CH (1973) Systematics specializes between Fabricius and Darwin: 1800–1859. In: Smith RF, Mittler TE, Smith CN. History of entomology. Annual Reviews, Palo Alto, pp 119–154Google Scholar
  84. Linnaeus C von (1751) Philosophia botanica, in qua explicanture fundamenta botanica, cum difinitionibus partium, exemplis terminorum, observationibus rariorum, adjecctis figures aeneis. Stockholmiae, i–ix, pp 1–362Google Scholar
  85. Linnaeus C von (1758) Systema naturae per regna tria naturae, secundum classes, ordines, genera, species cum characteribus, differntiis, synonymis, locis, Editio Decima, reformata, Tomus I. Lauarentii Salvii, HomiaeGoogle Scholar
  86. Liu J, Daily GC, Ehrlich PR, Luck G (2003) Effects of household dynamics on resource consumption and biodiversity. Nature 421:530–533PubMedGoogle Scholar
  87. Loraeu M, Oteng-Yeboah A, Arroyo MTK, Babin D, Barbault R, Donoghue M, Gadgil M, Hauser C, Heip C, Larigauderie A, Ma K, Mace G, Mooney HA, Perrrings C, Raven P, Sarukan J, Schei P, Scholes RJ, Watson RT (2006) Commentary: diversity without representation. Nature 442:245–246Google Scholar
  88. Lovelock J (2005) Gaia and the theory of the living planet. Gardner’s Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  89. Lubchenco J (1998) Entering the century of the environment: a new social contract for science. Science 279:491–497Google Scholar
  90. Lundmark C (2003) BioBlitz: getting into backyard biodiversity. Bioscience 54:329Google Scholar
  91. Mac MJ, Opler PA, Puckett Haecker CE, Doran PD (1998) Status and trends of the national biological resources, 2 vols. US Department of Interior, US Geological Survey, Reston, vol 1, pp 1–436; vol 2, pp 437–964Google Scholar
  92. Mace GM (2004) The role of taxonomy in species conservation. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B 359:711–719Google Scholar
  93. Mahan CG, Sullivan K, Kim KC, Yahner RH, Abrams M (1998) Ecosystem profile assessment of biodiversity: sampling protocols and procedures. Final Report, USDI, National Park Service, Mid-Atlantic RegionGoogle Scholar
  94. Mahan C, Kim KC, Sullivan K, Schrot A, Boone JH, Byers R (2004) Biodiversity associated with eastern hemlock forests: assessment and classification of invertebrate biodiversity within Shenandoah National Park. US Department of Interior, National Park Service, Northeast Region, Natural Resources Stewardship and Science, Technical Report NPS/NER/NRTR-2004/001Google Scholar
  95. Mascia MB, Brosius JP, Dobson TA, Forbes BC, Horowitz L, McKean MA, Turner NJ (2003) Conservation and the social sciences. Conserv Biol 17:649–650Google Scholar
  96. Mayr E, Ashlock PD (1991) Principles of systematic zoology, 2nd edn. McGraw-Hill College, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  97. McKinney ML (2002) Urbanization, biodiversity and conservation. Bioscience 52:883–890Google Scholar
  98. MEA: Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis report. Island, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  99. Miller JR (2005) Biodiversity conservation and the extinction of experience. Trends Ecol Evol 20:430–434PubMedGoogle Scholar
  100. Mittermeier RA, Myers N, Gill PC, Mittermeier CG (2000) Hotspots: earth’s richest and most endangered terrestrial ecoregion. CEMEX, Mexico CityGoogle Scholar
  101. MONGABAY.COM (2006) Pictures of newly discovered species in New uinea.Mongabay.com, February 2, 2006. http://news.mongabay.com/2006/0206-ng.htmlGoogle Scholar
  102. Mooney HA, McNeely JA, Neville LE, Schei PJ, Waage JK (eds) (2004) Invasive alien species: searching for solutions. Island, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  103. Musser G (2005) The climax of humanity. Sci Am 293:44–47PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Myers N (1988) Threatened biotas: “hot spots” in tropical forests. Environmentalist 8:120Google Scholar
  105. Myers N (1990) The biodiversity challenge: expanded hot spots analysis. Environmentalist 10:243–256PubMedGoogle Scholar
  106. Myers N, Mittermeier RA, Mittermeier CG, da Fonseca GAB, Kent J (2000) Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 403:853–858PubMedGoogle Scholar
  107. Naheem S, Li S (1997) Biodiversity enhances ecosystem predictability. Nature 390:162–165Google Scholar
  108. Nature Editor’s Summary (2006) Ecological complexity untangled. Nature 442:245Google Scholar
  109. NRC (National Research Council, Board of Agriculture) (1996) Ecologically based pest management: new solutions for a new century. National Academy, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  110. Olden JD, Rooney TP (2006) On defining and quantifying biotic homogenization. Global Ecol Biogeogr 15:113–120Google Scholar
  111. Palmer MA, Bernhardt E, Chornesky E, Collins S, Dobson A, Duke C, Gold B, Jacobson R, Kingsland S, Kranz R, Mappin M, Martinez ML, Micheli F, Morse J, Pace M, Pascual M, Palumbi S, Reichman OJ, Simons A, Townsend A, Turner M (2004) Ecology for a crowded planet. Science 304:1251–1252PubMedGoogle Scholar
  112. Pellet J, Guisan A, Perrin N (2004) A concentric analysis of the impact of urbanization on the threatened European tree frog in an agricultural landscape. Conserv Biol 18:1599–1606Google Scholar
  113. Pimentel D, Wilson C, McCullum C, Huang R, Dwen P, Flack J, Tran Q, Saltman T, Cliff B (1997) Economic and environmental benefits of biodiversity. Bioscience 47:747–757Google Scholar
  114. Pimm SL (1991) The balance of nature?: ecological issues in the conservation of species and communities. The University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  115. Prugh T (1995) Natural capital and human economic survival. ISEE Press, SolomonsGoogle Scholar
  116. Raven PH (ed) (1997) Nature and human society: the quest for a sustainable world. Proceedings of the 1997 forum on biodiversity, board of biology, National Research Council. National Academy, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  117. Raven PH (2002) Science, sustainability and the human prospect. Science 297:954–958PubMedGoogle Scholar
  118. Redford KH, Richter BD (1999) Conservation of biodiversity in a world of use. Conserv Biol 13:1246–1256Google Scholar
  119. Redman CL, Grove JM, Kuby LH (2004) Integrating social science into the Long-Term Ecological Research (LTER) network: social dimensions of ecological change and ecological dimensions of social change. Ecosystems 7:161–171Google Scholar
  120. Reid WV (1998) Biodiversity hotspots. Trends Ecol Evol 13:275–280Google Scholar
  121. Ricklefs RE (2004) A comprehensive framework for global patterns in biodiversity. Ecol Lett 7:1–15Google Scholar
  122. Rooney N, McCann K, Gellner G, Moore JC (2006) Structural asymmetry and the stability of diverse food webs. Nature 442:265–269PubMedGoogle Scholar
  123. Rosenzweig ML (2003) Win-win ecology: how the earth’s species can survive in the midst of human enterprise. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  124. Salwasser H, Caplan JA, Cartwright CW, Doyle AT, Kessler WB, Marcot BG, Stritch L (1996) Conserving biological diversity through ecosystem management. In: Szaro RC, Johnston DW (eds) Biodiversity unmanaged landscapes: theory and practice. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 548–573Google Scholar
  125. Scientific American Editorial (2005) Crossroads for planet earth. A plan for a bright future beyond 2050. Scientific American (Special Issue) September 2005. www.sciam.comGoogle Scholar
  126. Savage JM (1995) Systematics and the biodiversity crisis. Bioscience 45:673–679Google Scholar
  127. Scherber C, Mwangi PN, Temperton VM, Roscher C, Schumacher J, Schmid B, Weisser WW (2006) Effects of plant diversity on invertebrate herbivory in experimental grassland. Oecologia 147:489–500PubMedGoogle Scholar
  128. Schlesinger WH (2006) Global change ecology. Trends Ecol Evol 21:348–351PubMedGoogle Scholar
  129. Schluter D (2001) Ecology and the origin of species. Trends Ecol Evol 16:372–380PubMedGoogle Scholar
  130. Schwartz MW, Jurjavcic NL, O’Brian JM (2002) Conservation’s disenfranchised urban poor. Bioscience 52:601–606Google Scholar
  131. Shigesata N, Kawasaki K (1997) Biological invasions: theory and practice. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  132. Shochat E, Warren PS, Faeth SH, McIntyre NE, Hope D (2006) From pattern to process in mechanistic urban ecology. Trends Ecol Evol (in press)Google Scholar
  133. Sodhi NS, Koh LP, Brook BW, Ng PKL (2004) Southeast Asian biodiversity: an impending disaster. Trends Ecol Evol 19:654–660PubMedGoogle Scholar
  134. Solbrig OT, van Emden HM, van Oordt PGWJ (eds) (1994) Biodiversity and global change. CAB International, Wallingford, UKGoogle Scholar
  135. Stenseth NC, Mysterud A, Ottersen G, Hurrel JW, Chan K-S, Lima M (2002) Ecological effects of climate fluctuations. Science 297:1292–1296PubMedGoogle Scholar
  136. Stork N, Davies J (1996) Biodiversity inventories. In: Biodiversity assessment. A guide to good practice. Field manual 1. Data and specimen collection of plants, fungi and microorganisms. Vol 2: collecting biodiversity data 1. HMSO, London, pp 1–34Google Scholar
  137. Straub CS, Snyder WE (2006) Species identity dominates the relationship between predator biodiversity and herbivore suppression. Ecology 87:277–282PubMedGoogle Scholar
  138. Symstad AJ, Tilman D, Wilson J, Knops JMH (1998) Species loss and ecosystem functioning: effects of species identity and community composition. Oikos 81:389–397Google Scholar
  139. The Biodiversity Project (1998) Engaging the public on biodiversity: a road map for education and communication strategies. The Biodiversity Project, MadisonGoogle Scholar
  140. The Biodiversity Project (2002) Americans and biodiversity: new perspectives in 2002. Biodiversity Project. Belden Russonello and Stewart, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  141. Turner WR, Nakamura T, Dinetti M (2004) Global urbanization and the separation of humans from nature. Bioscience 54:585–590Google Scholar
  142. Tuxen SL (1973) Entomology systematizes and describes: 1700–1815. In: Smith RF, Mittler TE, Smith CN (eds) History of entomology. Annual Reviews, Palo Alto, pp 95–118Google Scholar
  143. UNEP (2002) United Nations Environment Programme. Report on the sixth meeting of the conference to the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity. UNEP/CBD/COP/6/20. http://www.biodiv.org/doc/meetings/cop/cop-06/official/cop-06-20-en.pdf (accessed May 2005)Google Scholar
  144. US Congress Office of Technology Assessment (1995) Biologically based technologies for pest control. OTS-ENV-636. US Government Printing Office, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  145. USGS/DOI (US Geological survey, Department of Interior) (2001) BioBlitz: a tool for biodiversity exploration, education, and investigation. Bio-Blitz home Page, USGS. http://www.im.nbs.gov/blitz.html (6/5/01)Google Scholar
  146. Vitousek PM, Mooney HA, Lubchenco J, Melillo J (1997) Human domination of earth’s ecosystems. Science 277:494–499Google Scholar
  147. Warwick RM, Clarke KR (1995) New ‘biodiversity’ measures reveal a decrease in taxonomic distinctness with increasing stress. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 129:301–305Google Scholar
  148. Wheeler QD (2004) Taxonomic triage and the poverty of phylogeny. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B 359:571–583Google Scholar
  149. Wheeler QD, Raven PH, Wilson EO (2004) Taxonomy: impediment or expedient? Science 303:285PubMedGoogle Scholar
  150. Wilson EO (1984) Biophilia: the human bond with other species. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  151. Wilson EO (1989) The coming pluralization of biology and the stewardship of systematics. Bioscience 39:242–245Google Scholar
  152. Wilson EO (2002) The future of life. Knopf, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  153. Wilson EO, Peter FM (1988) Biodiversity. National Academy, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  154. Wilson KA, McBride MF, Bode M, Possingham HP (2006) Prioritizing global conservation efforts. Nature 440:337–340PubMedGoogle Scholar
  155. Worldwatch Institute, The state of the world (1984–2005). Norton, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  156. Wortley AH, Bennett JR, Scotland RW (2002) Taxonomy and phylogeny reconstruction: two distinct research agendas in systematics. Edinburgh J Bot 59:335–349Google Scholar
  157. WRI, IUCN, UNEP (1992) Global Biodiversity Strategy: Guidelines for Action to Save, study, and Use Earth’s Biotic Wealth Sustainability and Equitability World Resources Institute (WRI), The Wild Conservation Union (IUCN), United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)Google Scholar
  158. Zedan H (2005) INSIGHTS: biodiversity essential for existence of life. Environmental News Service, 1–27 January 2005. http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jan2005/2005-01-27-]iczed.aspGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Ecological Society of Japan 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Entomology, Frost Entomological Museum, Center for BioDiversity Research, Penn State Institutes of the Environment, Intercollege Graduate Degree Program in EcologyThe Pennsylvania State UniversityUniversity ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations