Biodiversity

Climate change, biodiversity loss, and chemical pollution are planetary-scale emergencies requiring urgent mitigation actions. As these "triple crises" are deeply interlinked, they need to be tackled in an integrative manner. However, while climate change and biodiversity are often studied together, chemical pollution as a global change factor contributing to worldwide biodiversity loss has received much less attention in biodiversity research so far. Here, we review evidence showing that the multifaceted effects of anthropogenic chemicals in the environment are posing a growing threat to biodiversity and ecosystems. Therefore, failure to account for pollution effects may significantly undermine the success of biodiversity protection efforts. We argue that progress in understanding and counteracting the negative impact of chemical pollution on biodiversity requires collective efforts of scientists from different disciplines, including but not limited to ecology, ecotoxicology, and environmental chemistry. Importantly, recent developments in these fields have now enabled comprehensive studies that could efficiently address the manifold interactions between chemicals and ecosystems. Based on their experience with intricate studies of biodiversity, ecologists are well equipped to embrace the additional challenge of chemical complexity through interdisciplinary collaborations. This offers a unique opportunity to jointly advance a seminal frontier in pollution ecology and facilitate the development of innovative solutions for environmental protection.

Global change increasingly threatens nature, endangering the ecosystem services human wellbeing depends upon. Biodiversity potentially mediates these impacts by providing resilience to ecosystems. While biodiversity has been linked to resilience and ecosystem service supply on smaller scales, we lack understanding of whether mediating interactions between biodiversity and anthropogenic drivers are global and ubiquitous, and how they might differ between systems. Here, we examine the potential for biodiversity to mediate anthropogenic driver-ecosystem service relationships using global datasets across three distinct systems: mountains, islands and deltas. We found that driver-ecosystem service relationships were stronger where biodiversity was more intact, and weaker at higher species richness, reflecting the negative correlation between intactness and richness. Mediation was most common in mountains, then islands, then deltas; reducing with anthropogenic impact. Such patterns were found across provisioning and regulating ecosystem services, and occurred most commonly with climate change and built infrastructure. Further, we investigated the contribution of biodiversity and abiotic and anthropogenic drivers to ecosystem services. Ecosystem service supply was associated with abiotic and anthropogenic drivers alongside biodiversity, but all drivers were important to different ecosystem services. Our results empirically show the importance of accounting for the different roles that biodiversity plays in mediating human relationships with nature, and reinforce the importance of maintaining intact biodiversity in ecosystem functioning.

Aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems are tightly connected via spatial flows of organisms and resources. Such land-water linkages integrate biodiversity across ecosystems and suggest a spatial association of aquatic and terrestrial biodiversity. However, knowledge about the extent of this spatial association is limited. By combining satellite remote sensing (RS) and environmental DNA (eDNA) extraction from river water across a 740-km² mountainous catchment, we identify a characteristic spatial land-water fingerprint. Specifically, we find a spatial association of riverine eDNA diversity with RS spectral diversity of terrestrial ecosystems upstream, peaking at a 400 m distance yet still detectable up to a 2.0 km radius. Our findings show that biodiversity patterns in rivers can be linked to the functional diversity of surrounding terrestrial ecosystems and provide a dominant scale at which these linkages are strongest. Such spatially explicit information is necessary for a functional understanding of land-water linkages.