The carrying capacity of ecosystems

We analyse the concept of carrying capacity (CC), from populations to the biosphere, and offer a definition suitable for any level. For communities and ecosystems, the CC evokes density‐dependence assumptions analogous to those of population dynamics. At the biosphere level, human CC is uncertain and dynamic, leading to apprehensive rather than practical conclusions. The term CC is widely used among ecological disciplines but remains vague and elusive. We propose the following definition: the CC is ‘the limit of growth or development of each and all hierarchical levels of biological integration, beginning with the population, and shaped by processes and interdependent relationships between finite resources and the consumers of those resources’. The restrictions of the concept relate to the hierarchical approach. Emergent properties arise at each level, and environmental heterogeneity restrains the measurement and application of the CC. Because the CC entails a myriad of interrelated, ever‐changing biotic and abiotic factors, it must not be assumed constant, if we are to derive more effective and realistic management schemes. At the ecosystem level, stability and resilience are dynamic components of the CC. Historical processes that help shape global biodiversity (e.g. continental drift, glaciations) are likely drivers of large‐scale changes in the earth's CC. Finally, world population growth and consumption of resources by humanity will necessitate modifications to the paradigm of sustainable development, and demand a clear and fundamental understanding of how CC operates across all biological levels.     

The darkest microbiome—a post-human biosphere

Microbial technology is exceptional among human activities and endeavours in its range of applications that benefit humanity, even exceeding those of chemistry. What is more, microbial technologists are among the most creative scientists, and the scope of the field continuously expands as new ideas and applications emerge. Notwithstanding this diversity of applications, given the dire predictions for the fate of the surface biosphere as a result of current trajectories of global warming, the future of microbial biotechnology research must have a single purpose, namely to help secure the future of life on Earth. Everything else will, by comparison, be irrelevant. Crucially, microbes themselves play pivotal roles in climate (Cavicchioli et al., Nature Revs Microbiol 17 : 569–586, 2019). To enable realization of their full potential in humanity’s effort to survive, development of new and transformative global warming-relevant technologies must become the lynchpin of microbial biotechnology research and development. As a consequence, microbial biotechnologists must consider constraining their usual degree of freedom, and re-orienting their focus towards planetary-biosphere exigences. And they must actively seek alliances and synergies with others to get the job done as fast as humanly possible; they need to enthusiastically embrace and join the global effort, subordinating where necessary individual aspirations to the common good (the amazing speed with which new COVID-19 diagnostics and vaccines were developed and implemented demonstrates what is possible given creativity, singleness of purpose and funding). In terms of priorities, some will be obvious, others less so, with some only becoming revealed after dedicated effort yields new insights/opens new vistas. We therefore refrain from developing a priority list here. Rather, we consider what is likely to happen to the Earth’s biosphere if we (and the rest of humanity) fail to rescue it. We do so with the aim of galvanizing the formulation and implementation of strategic and financial science policy decisions that will maximally stimulate the development of relevant new microbial technologies, and maximally exploit available technologies, to repair existing environmental damage and mitigate against future deterioration.     

Anthropogenic transformation of the biomes, 1700 to 2000

Aim To map and characterize anthropogenic transformation of the terrestrial biosphere before and during the Industrial Revolution, from 1700 to 2000. Location Global. Methods Anthropogenic biomes (anthromes) were mapped for 1700, 1800, 1900 and 2000 using a rule‐based anthrome classification model applied to gridded global data for human population density and land use. Anthropogenic transformation of terrestrial biomes was then characterized by map comparisons at century intervals. Results In 1700, nearly half of the terrestrial biosphere was wild, without human settlements or substantial land use. Most of the remainder was in a seminatural state (45%) having only minor use for agriculture and settlements. By 2000, the opposite was true, with the majority of the biosphere in agricultural and settled anthromes, less than 20% seminatural and only a quarter left wild. Anthropogenic transformation of the biosphere during the Industrial Revolution resulted about equally from land‐use expansion into wildlands and intensification of land use within seminatural anthromes. Transformation pathways differed strongly between biomes and regions, with some remaining mostly wild but with the majority almost completely transformed into rangelands, croplands and villages. In the process of transforming almost 39% of earth's total ice‐free surface into agricultural land and settlements, an additional 37% of global land without such use has become embedded within agricultural and settled anthromes. Main conclusions Between 1700 and 2000, the terrestrial biosphere made the critical transition from mostly wild to mostly anthropogenic, passing the 50% mark early in the 20th century. At present, and ever more in the future, the form and process of terrestrial ecosystems in most biomes will be predominantly anthropogenic, the product of land use and other direct human interactions with ecosystems. Ecological research and conservation efforts in all but a few biomes would benefit from a primary focus on the novel remnant, recovering and managed ecosystems embedded within used lands.     

Human origins and the origins of humanity

As long asHomo sapiens was considered to be separated from the rest of the natural world by an unbridgeable if narrow gulf, there was no difficulty in defining, or at least in recognizing, what is «human» and what is not. But with the advent of evolutionary thought came the realization that the concept of humanity lacks any firm definition. While adminitting that any definition of humanness must be essentially intuitive and thus arbitrary, this article examines various innovations in the human fossil and archaeological records and discusses at what point humanness could be said to have been achieved. This task is complicated by the fact that there appears to be no correspondence whatever between biological and cultural innovation.     

Global change biology: A primer

Because of human action, the Earth has entered an era where profound changes in the global environment are creating novel conditions that will be discernable far into the future. One consequence may be a large reduction of the Earth's biodiversity, potentially representing a sixth mass extinction. With effective stewardship, the global change drivers that threaten the Earth's biota could be alleviated, but this requires clear understanding of the drivers, their interactions, and how they impact ecological communities. This review identifies 10 anthropogenic global change drivers and discusses how six of the drivers (atmospheric CO₂ enrichment, climate change, land transformation, species exploitation, exotic species invasions, eutrophication) impact Earth's biodiversity. Driver impacts on a particular species could be positive or negative. In either case, they initiate secondary responses that cascade along ecological lines of connection and in doing so magnify the initial impact. The unique nature of the threat to the Earth's biodiversity is not simply due to the magnitude of each driver, but due to the speed of change, the novelty of the drivers, and their interactions. Emphasizing one driver, notably climate change, is problematic because the other global change drivers also degrade biodiversity and together threaten the stability of the biosphere. As the main academic journal addressing global change effects on living systems, GCB is well positioned to provide leadership in solving the global change challenge. If humanity cannot meet the challenge, then GCB is positioned to serve as a leading chronicle of the sixth mass extinction to occur on planet Earth.     

Culture as a threat to humanity and the biosphere: A biohistorical perspective

This paper begins with a brief discussion of the biohistorical approach to the study of human situations. It then considers some important principles relating to the health and behaviour of the human organism, as a biological being, in biologically novel habitats (eg cities) created by human culture. In particular, it examines the notion, in biohistorical perspective, that human culture is at present dangerously out of control; and it concludes with some discussion on prerequisites for a successful cultural adaptive response to the threats to humanity and to the biosphere inherent in the current situation.     

How close are we to a predictive science of the biosphere?

In just 20 years, the field of biosphere-atmosphere interactions has gone from a nascent discipline to a central area of modern climate change research. The development of terrestrial biosphere models that predict the responses of ecosystems to climate and increasing CO2 levels has highlighted several mechanisms by which changes in ecosystem composition and function might alter regional and global climate. However, results from empirical studies suggest that ecosystem responses can differ markedly from the predictions of terrestrial biosphere models. As I discuss here, the challenge now is to connect terrestrial biosphere models to empirical ecosystem measurements. Only by systematically evaluating the predictions of terrestrial biosphere models against suites of ecosystem observations and experiments measurements will a true predictive science of the biosphere be achieved.     

生态系统服务与自然资本价值评估

生态系统服务是生态系统提供的商品和服务,是人类生态和发展的物质基础和基本条件,是人类拥有的关键自然资本。概述了生态系统服务的内涵及类型,介绍了当前国内外有关生态系统服务及自然资本的价值理论、价值评估的各种方法及其类型;评述了研究的主要进展,存在的主要问题、难点和研究的主要趋向。认为生态系统服务及自然资本的价值评估研究是建立生态－环境－经济综合核算体系（可持续发展核算体系）的重要内容和关键环节,完善价值评估的理论与经济技术方法是生态系统服务价值评估研究亟待解决的问题。     

Attempt at computer modeling of evolution of the human society

A model of evolution of human society and biosphere, which is based on concepts of V.I. Vernadskii and of L.N. Gumilev about ethnogenesis has been developed and studied. The mathematical apparatus of the model is composition of finite stochastic automats. By using this model, a possibility of the global ecological crisis is demonstrated in the case of preservation of the current tendencies of interaction of the biosphere and the human civilization.     

Ecosphere,biosphere, or Gaia? What to call the global ecosystem

The terms biosphere, ecosphere, and Gaia are used as names for the global ecosystem. However, each has more than one meaning. Biosphere can mean the totality of living things residing on the Earth, the space occupied by living things, or life and life-support systems (atmosphere, hydrosphere, lithosphere, and pedosphere). Ecosphere is used as a synonym of biosphere and as a term for zones in the universe where life as we know it should be sustainable. Gaia is similar to biosphere (in the sense of life and life-support systems) and ecosphere (in the sense of biosphere as life and life-support systems), but, in its most extreme form, refers to the entire planet as a living entity. A case is made for avoiding the term Gaia (at least as a name for the planetary ecosystem), restricting biosphere to the totality of living things, and adopting the ecosphere as the most apt name for the global ecosystem.     

陆地生物圈模型的发展与应用

陆地生物圈与大气圈和水圈之间能量、水和碳氮等元素的交换和循环对整个地球系统产生了深刻的影响。陆地生物圈模型(TBM)是研究陆地生态系统如何响应和反馈全球变化的重要方法和工具。通过对从生态系统到区域和全球陆地生物圈不同空间尺度的植被动态、生物地球物理和生物地球化学循环过程、水循环和水文过程、自然干扰和人类活动等过程时间动态的模拟, 陆地生物圈模型被广泛地应用于评估和归因过去陆地生物圈的时空变化和预测陆地生物圈对未来全球变化的响应和反馈。该文简要回顾了陆地生物圈模型的发展, 总结了模型对陆地生态系统主要过程的刻画和模型在生态系统生态学的应用, 并对未来陆地生物圈模型的发展和应用进行了展望。     

Significance of Biodiversity to Health

The United Nations declared 2010 the International Year of Biodiversity. Despite the magnitude of the global crisis of biodiversity loss, its far-reaching consequences to human health remain largely unappreciated. The legacy of the natural world to medicine is profound and its potential to yield new therapeutics and advancements in biomedical science undervalued. The enormity of the global crisis underscores a fundamental truth, one that is seemingly obvious but has been tragically overlooked: Our species does not exist in isolation from the biosphere. Rather, our fate depends on it.     

Macrophysiology for a changing world

The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) has identified climate change, habitat destruction, invasive species, overexploitation and pollution as the major drivers of biodiversity loss and sources of concern for human well-being. Understanding how these drivers operate and interact and how they might be mitigated are among the most pressing questions facing humanity. Here, we show how macrophysiology--the investigation of variation in physiological traits over large geographical, temporal and phylogenetic scales--can contribute significantly to answering these questions. We do so by demonstrating, for each of the MA drivers, how a macrophysiological approach can or has helped elucidate the impacts of these drivers and their interactions. Moreover, we illustrate that a large-scale physiological perspective can provide insights into previously unrecognized threats to diversity, such as the erosion of physiological variation and stress tolerance, which are a consequence of the removal of large species and individuals from the biosphere. In so doing we demonstrate that environmental physiologists have much to offer the scientific quest to resolve major environmental problems.     

The Ethical Basis for Sustainable Human Security: A Place for Anthropocentrism?

The deep and lasting changes to human behaviour that are required to address the global environmental crisis necessitate profound shifts in moral foundations. They amount to a change in what individuals and societies conceive of as progress. This imperative raises important questions about the justification, ends, and means of large-scale changes in people’s ethics. In this essay I will focus on the ends—the direction of moral change as prescribed by the goal of sustainable human flourishing. I shall present a meta-ethical critique of anthropocentrism and propose that only an ecocentric ethic can support the sustainable flourishing of humanity. This proposition does not necessarily contradict itself. My claim will be that the values subsumed under the broad concept of anthropocentrism are categorically counterproductive, informing an undesirable concept of “progress”. I support this claim with two lines of argument. On the one hand, the end values of anthropocentrism are shallow and the “flourishing of humanity” is ill-defined. The conceptual constraints of anthropocentrism itself preclude a more concise definition which would take into account the utter dependence of the flourishing of humanity on the health of ecological support structures. On the other hand, pursuing the values that inform the actions of anthropocentrists (which may be identical with the “flourishing of humanity”) leads to unintended and undesirable outcomes, even from the view of the anthropocentrist herself. Those problems are not encountered with an ecocentric ethic, and the conceptual steps necessary to adopt it are not insurmountable.     

Soil organic carbon across scales

Mechanistic understanding of scale effects is important for interpreting the processes that control the global carbon cycle. Greater attention should be given to scale in soil organic carbon (SOC) science so that we can devise better policy to protect/enhance existing SOC stocks and ensure sustainable use of soils. Global issues such as climate change require consideration of SOC stock changes at the global and biosphere scale, but human interaction occurs at the landscape scale, with consequences at the pedon, aggregate and particle scales. This review evaluates our understanding of SOC across all these scales in the context of the processes involved in SOC cycling at each scale and with emphasis on stabilizing SOC. Current synergy between science and policy is explored at each scale to determine how well each is represented in the management of SOC. An outline of how SOC might be integrated into a framework of soil security is examined. We conclude that SOC processes at the biosphere to biome scales are not well understood. Instead, SOC has come to be viewed as a large‐scale pool subjects to carbon flux. Better understanding exists for SOC processes operating at the scales of the pedon, aggregate and particle. At the landscape scale, the influence of large‐ and small‐scale processes has the greatest interaction and is exposed to the greatest modification through agricultural management. Policy implemented at regional or national scale tends to focus at the landscape scale without due consideration of the larger scale factors controlling SOC or the impacts of policy for SOC at the smaller SOC scales. What is required is a framework that can be integrated across a continuum of scales to optimize SOC management.     

Energy budget of the biosphere and civilization: Rethinking environmental security of global renewable and non-renewable resources

How much and what kind of energy should the civilization consume, if one aims at preserving global stability of the environment and climate? Here we quantify and compare the major types of energy fluxes in the biosphere and civilization.It is shown that the environmental impact of the civilization consists, in terms of energy, of two major components: the power of direct energy consumption (around 15 × 10¹² W, mostly fossil fuel burning) and the primary productivity power of global ecosystems that are disturbed by anthropogenic activities. This second, conventionally unaccounted, power component exceeds the first one by at least several times.It is commonly assumed that the environmental stability can be preserved if one manages to switch to “clean”, pollution-free energy resources, with no change in, or even increasing, the total energy consumption rate of the civilization. Such an approach ignores the fact that the environmental stability is regionally and globally controlled by the functioning of natural ecosystems on land and in the ocean. This means that the climate and environment can only remain stable if the anthropogenic pressure on natural ecosystems is diminished, which is unachievable without reducing the global rate of energy consumption. If the modern rate of anthropogenic pressure on the ecosystems is sustained, it will be impossible to mitigate the degradation of climate and environment even after changing completely to “clean” technologies (e.g., to the “zero emissions” scenario).It is shown that under the limitation of preserving environmental stability, the available renewable energy resources (river hydropower, wind power, tidal power, solar power, power of the thermohaline circulation, etc.) can in total ensure no more than one tenth of the modern energy consumption rate of the civilization, not to compromise the delivery of life-important ecosystem services by the biosphere to the humanity.With understanding still lacking globally that the anthropogenic impact on the biosphere must be strictly limited, the potential availability of the practically infinite stores of nuclear fusion energy (or any other infinite energy sources) poses an unprecedented threat to the existence of civilization and life on the planet.     

Ecological and Cultural Landscape Restoration and the Cultural Evolution towards a Post-Industrial Symbiosis between Human Society and Nature

I discuss ecological and cultural restoration within the broader context of the critical transition period from the fossil fuel age to the post-industrial global information age. In this cultural evolutionary process, the restoration of natural and cultural landscapes should play a vital role. For this purpose, it has to be guided by a holistic and transdisciplinary systems approach, aiming not only at the organismic but also at the functional and structural restoration of ecological and cultural diversity as total landscape ecodiversity. For the development of suitable restoration strategies, a clear distinction has to be made between different functional classes of natural and cultural solar-powered biosphere and fossil-powered technosphere landscapes, according to their inputs and throughputs of energy and materials, their organisms, their control by natural or human information, their internal self-organization and their regenerative capacities. Not only technosphere landscapes but also intensive agro-industrial landscapes have lost these capacities and are heavily subsidized by fossil energy and chemicals, to the detriment of the environment and human health. They therefore have to be rehabilitated by more sustainable but not less productive agricultural systems based on organic farming. But their natural regenerative capacities can be restored only by regenerative systems, with the help of cultural "neotechnic" information. The promise for an urgently required evolutionary symbiosis between human society and nature in a sustainable post-industrial total human ecosystem lies in the functional integration of such innovative regenerative systems and all natural and cultural biosphere landscapes with healthier and more livable technosphere landscapes. To this goal, ecological and cultural landscape restoration can make an important contribution.     

“Ecological biotechnology” – the new dimension in technology

Ecological restructuring of all areas is the most essential action needed for the future of our cultures on earth. This paper intends to clarify how human technology activities can be embedded in the cycles of the biosphere.A new quality of life will be maintainable by this concept of ecologically sustainable technology.The background of this innovation is explained in more detail and the fundamentals are eluciatated comprehensively. A series of principles of general validity are derived from the study of ecosystems in biosphere, which are to be transferred to technologies. This will result in the new technology paradigm of “ecologic process engineering” which is part of a new paradigm in sciences.